4/5 What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the
homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name
of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
- Gandhi
\_ Gandhi was a British subject, disgruntled because he could not
become an officer, who slept with preteen girls in the
nude, was fixated on his own feces, gave tacit approval
of the wholesale slaughter of Muslims after independence,
advised the Jews of the Holocaust to go quietly, and was a
supporter of the caste system.
\_ Interesting; could you cite a few sources?
\_ So what? Look up ad hominem.
\- i imagine this is a troll, but in case it leaves some of
with mistaken impressions:
1. he was a british subject as a consequence of birth.
g. washington was also a british subject.
2. "couldnt not become an officer" ... "yes, g. washington
also was disgruntled because he couldnt become archbishop
of canterbury"
3. girls and feces ... feces not quite right. something
possibly to the girl stuff. i dont think there was any
accusation of molestation. YMWT(see) the play "gandhi vs.
the mahatma".
4. muslim: the main reason i replied. that is 100% opposite
to the actual state of affiars.
5. jews: dunno the answer there
6. caste system: more complicated than that
People in india have much more complicated and diverse
reactions and mpression of Gandhi in india. I dont think
much of this particular quites but he has some others that
much of this particular quote but he has some others that
arent to be believed slavishly but worth thinking about.
\_ You want a real answer? The answer is that it doesn't matter to
the dead, but for millions of others who didn't get dead it
matters a lot. It's a naive and childish but catchy little quote.
\_ It matters to me, if I get a good paying job because the economy
improves because market and consumer confience recovers because
of a decisive military victory for whatever reason and because,
in time, we will have virtually unlimited supply of fuel.
\_ In time we will have a virtually unlimited supply
of fuel, but not because of Iraq or the war. Rather
the source will be our own waste coverted to fuel
via a fast depolymerization process (see this month's
discover for more info).
\_ moron... in time, we will only be running out of fossil fuel.
\_ The world has 2000-4000 years worth of coal, much of which is
in the U.S. Probably a good 200 years of oil, also.
I'm not advocating relying on fossil fuels, which is
a bad idea for alot of reasons, but we're not running
out any time soon.
\_ on the contrary, estimates of oil reserves can vary widely.
there are those who think oil will run out by the 2050's.
I.e. well within your projected lifetime.
\_ 2000+ years coal and 200 years oil!? Are you serious? URL
for sources please?
\_ I got those numbers from a UN report, which is
available on the web, but I can't find it right now.
if you're patient, I'll post it tomorrow, when I can
ask the guy who showed it to me(I'll post it anyway.) |
http://csua.com/feed/