The Real Debate! - Page 13

Originally posted by: angie.4u

Not so soon, K ! Do give them a chance !  Inspite of some members as well as the Mods assurance regarding freedom of expression on DM , I feel there are some who are still hesitating to put forth their views. It would be better to voice it out here , have a healthy discussion  and  try and think objectively if those were based on logic , misrepresentations or emotions.

A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions. When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions. When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  

The detractors of Gandhi remain silent so perhaps theres nothing more from their side.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.

The Gandhi-Irwin pact did exist and is historical fact. In the Pact Gandhi would discontinue the civil disobedience movement and in return the British government would release political prisoners. Yes Gandhi did request Bhagat Singh and others to be released. However, since the British government found them guilty of violence that was taken off the table. There were several other compromises.

So considering that Gandhi did sign this pact it is completely open to analysis if he was right in doing so. We can consider both perspectives
a)  Perhaps he had done his absolute best in negotiations and did what was best in negotiations. He resulted in the most moral and just outcome possible.
b) Perhaps he was too eager for compromise and resolution that he let some national heroes hang, when he could have negotiated against it and he was immoral in doing so.

Instead of dismissing every opposing view as some conspiracy theory or crackpot theory of some sort, you could actually debate to show why (a) is more reasonable than (b).

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That sentence began with "I think". There was no attempt to pass it off as fact. However, I can explain the reasoning behind me forming such opinions.

Satyagraha and non-violence are very idealistic concepts and difficult to apply in the long run. There have been only two successful non-violent movements in history, the Indian freedom movement led by Gandhi and then the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King. Jr. However, neither movements were in isolation and independent, they ran parallel to more explicit struggles. I think there comes a time when even the most non violent and pacifist of people has to take a hard stand against injustice. Sometimes you simply cannot fight with words or inaction, but a stance has to be taken with forceful action.

Peace and compromise are also idealistic. Some demands, some expectations, some wants are wrong and founded on wrong misguided principles. The demand for a separate Pakistan, the separation of our people based on religion is an abhorrent idea. For some reason despite considering these abhorrent ideas, Gandhi preferred to try and compromise with these divisive factions rather than force them to be one. I feel in the long run that has negatively affected both our nations and we live in a schism that never should have been.

I have admitted that these are what if scenarios and that I don't know if outcomes would have been positive had Gandhi changed his stances and actions on some things. Its an interpretation of history and I never attempted to present them as facts or truths of history. However, I don't think it is completely unreasonable to have these perceptions.

If you have a problem with how I perceive history, then too bad for you.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.

Well it is not an unfair assumption. Gandhi is probably one of the most influential leader of that era. He could captivate the masses instantaneously, drive them to action and British leaders were constantly trying to counter him or compromise with him. He may not have had the power to pardon or release prisoners, but it won't be outrageous to assume that he wielded the powers of influence and it won't be outrageous to hope that he utilized it more often. It goes back to my earlier point he either did the best he could, or he stopped short. We won't know the absolute facts, but if you believe he did everything in his means to right the nation and its people, then present the argument why you feel it must be that way.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions.

There has been absolutely nothing obscene or defamatory stated. No one has denied Gandhi the role he played in history. Its merely a question of did he do enough, could he have done more and do we potentially overlook some of his mistakes. You choose to take these as obscenities, defamation and get incited. 

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  

Yes, it is very difficult to debate with people who have made up their minds. Especially when people have made up their minds that they are right and all those who contradict their righteous opinions or think differently are nothing but ignorant, disrespectful, idiots who are making up bullshit.

Some findings on Confirmation Bias-

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions."

Confirmation bias is seeing the world through a filter, thinking selectively.

The real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn't, you hate them.

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Valdis Krebs at orgnet.com analyzed purchasing trends on Amazon.People who already supported Obama were the same people buying books which painted him in a positive light. People who already disliked Obama were the ones buying books painting him in a negative light. People rarely seek books which challenge their notions of how things are or should be. Just like with pundits, people weren't buying books for the information, they were buying them for the confirmation.

Krebs has researched purchasing trends on Amazon and the clustering habits of people on social networks for years, and his research shows what psychological research into confirmation bias predicts: you want to be right about how you see the world, so you seek out information which confirms your beliefs and avoid contradictory evidence and opinions.

Half-a-century of research has placed confirmation bias among the most dependable of mental stumbling blocks.

Journalists looking to tell a certain story must avoid the tendency to ignore evidence to the contrary; scientists looking to prove a hypothesis must avoid designing experiments with little wiggle room for alternate outcomes.

Without confirmation bias, conspiracy theories would fall apart. Did we really put a man on the moon? If you are looking for proof we didn't, you can find it.

In science, you move closer to the truth by seeking evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the same method should inform our opinions as well.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The Gandhi-Irwin pact did exist and is historical fact. In the Pact Gandhi would discontinue the civil disobedience movement and in return the British government would release political prisoners. Yes Gandhi did request Bhagat Singh and others to be released. However, since the British government found them guilty of violence that was taken off the table. There were several other compromises.

So considering that Gandhi did sign this pact it is completely open to analysis if he was right in doing so. We can consider both perspectives
a)  Perhaps he had done his absolute best in negotiations and did what was best in negotiations. He resulted in the most moral and just outcome possible.
b) Perhaps he was too eager for compromise and resolution that he let some national heroes hang, when he could have negotiated against it and he was immoral in doing so.

Instead of dismissing every opposing view as some conspiracy theory or crackpot theory of some sort, you could actually debate to show why (a) is more reasonable than (b).

When I said "such a pact", emphasis on the word "such",  I was referring to that fictional part of the pact that had a line somewhere that allowed for the execution of the said three freedom fighters with their names clearly enumerated. Hence the word conspiracy, to separate fact from fiction.

All we know is that there were political prisoners rotting in Jail, some of who were found guilty of violence and some who were not. We don't know the numbers. Assuming that no human life is more valuable than another (see related threads on this forum), when signing this pact, Gandhi did his best to come out with the release of as many political prisoners as possible. A delay (while negotiating for specific prisoners) could have resulted in a no pact and/or further deaths in Jails, even of those who were peacefully protesting but arrested and put in jails. We don't know. I gave the benefit of doubt to Gandhi. Some didn't. Be that as it may, implying that Gandhi was somehow responsible for the execution of the said prisoners is defamation. The three prisoners died because they indulged in violence. It was their own doing. If Gandhi had indulged in violence, he would have been hung too. If millions had done that, the possibilities were a) they would have defeated the British b) they would all be hung too. Considering the fact that the Maharajas and their soldiers could do squat to the Britishers, I would go with possibility b in the above scenario.

I would attempt to answer the rest of your post later.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions. When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  

This debate is based on personal opinions, as everyone has a right to their opinion: I respect and welcome all. 😛

What did Gandhi leave behind except for a name! How many political leaders follow in his footsteps. His myth on abandoned nonviolent actions, and today India has the 4th largest armed force in the world. India is following in the foot steps of western countries by building economy on large scale industries on agriculture land where 80% of the mass population is still lives.

There is a thin line between whose footstep do  you follow vs just naming an individual to be a saint.

Edited by night13 - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

There has been absolutely nothing obscene or defamatory stated. No one has denied Gandhi the role he played in history. Its merely a question of did he do enough, could he have done more and do we potentially overlook some of his mistakes.

I didn't say ALL the exceptions mentioned by me apply to what has been said so far. I was only citing a few known exceptions. If I had listed every known exception or pointed out a link to every known exception to free speech protection, that wouldn't mean I was implying that all of them would apply here. It could be a misunderstanding so we will let this pass. No debate here.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

No one has denied Gandhi the role he played in history. Its merely a question of did he do enough, could he have done more and do we potentially overlook some of his mistakes.

You accuse Gandhi of being a pacifist but you turn around and try to do the same over here. The crux of the discussion, if I am not wrong,  is whether Gandhi should have been shot dead in public or not (which is what Godse did). What you are trying to do is water down the sentiment of the detractors to make it more palatable to the neutral audience. Nice try but that is not the position assumed by the pro-"Gandhi-should-have-been-shot-dead" -gang.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Yes, it is very difficult to debate with people who have made up their minds. Especially when people have made up their minds that they are right and all those who contradict their righteous opinions or think differently are nothing but ignorant, disrespectful, idiots who are making up bullshit.

Stop being touchy.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

You accuse Gandhi of being a pacifist but you turn around and try to do the same over here. The crux of the discussion, if I am not wrong,  is whether Gandhi should have been shot dead in public or not (which is what Godse did). What you are trying to do is water down the sentiment of the detractors to make it more palatable to the neutral audience. Nice try but that is not the position assumed by the pro-"Gandhi-should-have-been-shot-dead" -gang.

I've never denied that I myself am a pacifist. I also often wonder if I make a right decision in doing so. That aside - I feel the TS has intentionally made the opening questions controversial and inflammatory. While I do not know some of these new comers well, I believe that this is not done out of malice or disdain, but purely to incite discussion and interaction.

The crux I believe is not in if someone deserved to get shot dead or in justifying a convicted killer - thats the attention grabber. The crux is more in a reevaluation of Gandhi in historical perspective decades later and analyzing his decisions and choices. In my personal opinion he is not as infallible or mercurial as he is perceived to be, but to many others he is the face of our freedom movement and our nations greatest leaders. The crux to me is the clash of these two perspectives.

I remember going to Passion of the Christ with a church group. My friends father was a pastor. One of our post film discussion questions was "Did Jesus deserve to die?". I don't think any pastor in their right mind wants people to think Jesus deserved to die, the point is to engage in critical thinking so that people reaffirm beliefs or views after a thorough evaluation of all perspectives.

I don't see any arguments here which go  purely "Gandhi should have been shot". Most are just refusing to believe that Gandhi did everything right. I feel you are so engrossed in your personal viewpoints that anything that opposes it is grossly vile or to the extreme.

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner.

👍🏼