Skip to comments.
WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?
Iconoclast ^
| unk
| William Grim
Posted on 04/11/2003 12:35:47 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: hchutch; Poohbah; Dog Gone; Catspaw; wimpycat
Good stuff
2
posted on
04/11/2003 12:36:51 PM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(and in Paris, after a parade celebrating the fall of Hussein, they give out medals to everybody)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Ghandi brought the British empire to it's knees...figuratively speaking.
3
posted on
04/11/2003 12:37:48 PM PDT
by
stylin19a
(oh to die peacefully in my sleep like my uncle-not screaming in terror like his taxi passengers)
To: All
Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
4
posted on
04/11/2003 12:39:06 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: stylin19a
Only because there was a core f decency in the British. If they were colonized by Nazi Germany, do you think the result would be similar, or would Ghandi have wound up taking a dirt nap?
5
posted on
04/11/2003 12:40:03 PM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(and in Paris, after a parade celebrating the fall of Hussein, they give out medals to everybody)
To: stylin19a
Ghandi brought the British empire to it's knees...figuratively speaking.
Gandi wasn't confronting evil in the British
6
posted on
04/11/2003 12:41:14 PM PDT
by
uncbob
( building tomorrow)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Depending on how inherently intelligent the evil person is, dialogue can defeat evil, but only when your side of the dialogue is backed up by a significant, credible threat of force. But even then, you can't actually defeat evil through dialogue, only contain or draw boundaries around it.
7
posted on
04/11/2003 12:41:36 PM PDT
by
wimpycat
('Nemo me impune lacessit')
To: wimpycat
The Cold War is an example of your corollary.
8
posted on
04/11/2003 12:43:16 PM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(and in Paris, after a parade celebrating the fall of Hussein, they give out medals to everybody)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
I dont know who said it, but it is definetly true that "Evil festers when good men do nothing". Commies (I include secular socialists in this group) always talk peace but act warlike. To not meet force with force is suicide.
9
posted on
04/11/2003 12:43:53 PM PDT
by
Kudsman
(LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine; uncbob
It doesn't fit the author's definition of "evil" however,
I suppose the Indians looked at the British occupation as evil, at the time.
10
posted on
04/11/2003 12:46:36 PM PDT
by
stylin19a
(oh to die peacefully in my sleep like my uncle-not screaming in terror like his taxi passengers)
To: uncbob
Good point. Try using passive civil disobedience on an ogre such as Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Mao, or Castro. It'll get you dead or imprisoned--nothing more. Ghandi had success with the British, American blacks had success in the civil rights moverment, because they were not confronting to-the-core-evil authoritarian regimes. They were discoursing with democratic governments of limited and balanced powers.
To: stylin19a
I suppose the Indians looked at the British occupation as evil, at the time.I suppose it's a shame they couldn't have spent five decades under Stalin or Saddam so they could learn the true nature of evil. They would have judged the British Raj gloriously easy and clement by comparison.
To: wimpycat
but only when your side of the dialogue is backed up by a significant, credible threat of force. In other words, no. It is the threat of force, not the dialogue, that does the trick.
The problem with "dialogue" is that both parties have to agree on what is right and wrong. Dialogue succeeds only when one side agrees that its position is wrong, and that the other party's position is right.
But if we grant that one of the parties is "Evil," then clearly the concepts of "right and wrong" are not even in play -- to be "evil" is explicitly to defy those concepts. A dialogue based on "right and wrong" simply cannot form a valid basis for negotiation.
Successful negotiations are only possible if both sides agree to the terms. Experience shows that "evil" either rots away from the inside, or must be forced into submission. Thus, the grounds for "negotiation" are either containment (which requires the threat of force), or actual use of force.
13
posted on
04/11/2003 12:51:52 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Kevin Curry
Ghandi had success with the British, American blacks had success in the civil rights moverment, because they were not confronting to-the-core-evil authoritarian regimes. They were discoursing with democratic governments of limited and balanced powers.You can include American women and the suffrage movement.
14
posted on
04/11/2003 12:52:40 PM PDT
by
Kudsman
(LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Need to ask France, Germany and Russia this question.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
You should email this story to the Pope.
16
posted on
04/11/2003 1:01:53 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: lilylangtree
Need to ask France No we dont they just surrender anyway.
17
posted on
04/11/2003 1:05:49 PM PDT
by
Kudsman
(LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
To: stylin19a
syylin19a - "Ghandi brought the British empire to it's knees...figuratively speaking. "
It should be pointed out that even Ghandi, the man who every appeasnik points to, admitted that when peaceful means fail, force must be used. This is why he eventually gave tactit support to the British war effort against Nazi Germany and Japan.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
I guess the fans of "opening a dialogue" believe that you can talk a madman or dictator to death.
19
posted on
04/11/2003 1:10:25 PM PDT
by
Orangedog
(Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
To: Kevin Curry
Ghandi had success with the British, American blacks had success in the civil rights moverment, because they were not confronting to-the-core-evil authoritarian regimes. A thornier question is whether "to-the-core evil" is a necessary precondition for the failure of dialogue. For example, could American slavery have been ended via dialogue, as it was in Britain, Europe, and the Northern U.S.?
I do not believe that the Southern slave-holders were "to-the-core evil," but I also do not believe that slavery would have ended without the Civil War.
Although slavery is an evil institution, the South in general, and slave-holders in particular, were clearly not all "evil to the core." They were instead unshakeable on the terms of what constituted "right and wrong" in that particular instance. In their view, it was basically a trade between their own financial well-being, and the liberty of "inferior beings."
In theory there may have been a chance -- over a course of decades or centuries -- for dialogue to work. But I doubt it. It's easy to rationalize a lot when you choose money over God.
20
posted on
04/11/2003 1:12:23 PM PDT
by
r9etb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson