[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure.

Yes indeed. If only people would have dared to step up as long as there was time. but they didn't.

I was once picked on in Primary School when I was 8 years old, the bully was in the same year as my brother they were both 11 years of age.
(...)
Now, if all the others had have rallied round me, when I refused to pay, what could he have done? He couldn't have hurt all of us there was too many.

Yes indeed. If only people would have dared to rally around you. But they didn't.

That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative.

You don't try to contradict yourself now, do you? first you tell us that conflict cannot replace reason, then you tell us to shy away from conflict that might be needed to fight evil is more about not egtting hurt yourself. Leave me with the question: is there anything left you would be willing to take a rsik for? Nothing worth in your life to be defended? Running away is safe. It secures survival beyond the immediate moment. But what about longterm conseqeunces? The survival of others tht you love? Is it all centred just around your own immediate interest? If so, you leave me unimpressed. There is no glory in headlessly sacrificing oneself. But there is also no glory in not caring a bit for others. It is egoism, which leads directly to anarchism. In anarchism, the strongest rules. Sooner or later you will find someone who is strong enough to deny you the option to run away. Then you are left with your own statement: "So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure."

Of course the bully left me alone then after he got a taste of his own blood, but, had the others supported me, just as if the majority of Germans had supported the opponents of the Nazis then there would have been no need for a fight.

Yes indeed. If only the others would have supported you. But they didn't. There are plenty of "if only"s in your reply, Penelope. You knwo what I told people over and over again when they came for meditation? that much of it is about learning to realize the difference between what we wish things to be, and what they really are.

Am I wrong? Possibly. Am I living on a fairy tale world? Perhaps. But I still believe and always will do, striving for non-violent solutions to problems is the greatest courage of all.

More contradicting yourself. first you admit you are probably wring. then you say you live in a fairy tale world. And finally you say that you still believe it. I do not judge the quality in it, I only point out the contradiction in your argumentation.

Look at Gandhi! Now there is a man who was truly inspirational. That man would never have dreamt of picking up a gun to make change no matter how he suffered. Yet it was a gun that killed him. Gandi had more guts than the SOB that pulled the trigger did.

I am sure there have been many Ghandis in the world, and most of them you never hear of, because they get killed early on. It was a question of probability that sooner or later one of them would make a slioghtly longer stand. Look at India today and tell me if you see much of ghandi's heritage still alive. Also, he was against the British empire, which beside many negative side-effects was an extremely civilised example amonst all history's empires. It caused some terrible violence, and betrayel, but it also helped some substantial dveelopement, and also prevented much local excesses of violance - that flamed up again after the British left. Don't get me wrong, I do not declare it as holy, but there have been worse empires than the British has been. Also, they got over it. If Ghandi would have been up agai8nst Hitler, stalin, MaoTsetung, Hussein, Tamerlan or one other of this callibre, we wpould not remeber him today, for history would naver have taken note of him. He would have been dead from very early on. Maybe an symbolic act of his that we remember, but no substantial changes. Take the White rose, for example. A resitance group in Germany, by very young people, led by a brother and a sister. That me still remember them, today is because of their courage, and integrity. But it was a symboli act of theirs only - it did not really hinder the Nazis in any way.

I also wonder why Ghandi apparently seems to be an idol of yours. You admire his altruistic deeds, his courage to challenge an empire in the face of brutal violence. You also wrote: "That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative."

People can bash Neville Chamberlain all they want and they can blame him for whatver they see fit, he was in an awkward positon and so was the Country. The mouthpiece that wrote that article says about appeasing hitler, why didn't the French do something? they had a bigger army than the Germans did! Why did the Russians side with Hitler, their ideological opposite no less! There are plenty of people to blame besides Chamberlain.

Yes. But the failure of others does not make the failure of chamberlain less obvious. Too many failed - that is the point.

This has confused me now. I don't understand completely what you mean here. How was not attacking immediately after the declaration of war contradictory to the wish of buying more time? Declaration of war not needed for what purpose?

A declaration of war is a provocation. If you want to buy time, you better do not provoke a hostile reaction before you are finished with your preparation. You would prefer to leave the future enemy unknowing.

I am courageous. It takes more guts to not fight and to walk away and be seen by other people who do be violent as a coward, than it does to fight and brawl. I say I am a coward because people have called me one over my lifetime. I am a jumpy person, and I am not brave or strong, or an aspiring hero. I am just somebody trying to do waht I think is right. I express my own courage in my way.

Okay, you cleared that one, then. I was wondering anyway. that you show up here and defend your opinions against some alraedy harsh opposition shows that you are not really a coward at all.