The might is always just

Syzygys

Syzygys

As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
It is like gravitation, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is. (aka FACT) :)

So people can bitch about when they got screwed by the stronger, even rightfully so until the end of times, the best policy is to be well, stronger...

P.S.: Dear Spurious, I don't write the rules of life (facts), I just recognize them. Also history books are written by the winners, but I don't have to mention that, do I?
 
Syzygys said:
It is like gravitation, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is. (aka FACT) :)

So people can bitch about when they got screwed by the stronger, even rightfully so until the end of times, the best policy is to be well, stronger...

P.S.: Dear Spurious, I don't write the rules of life (facts), I just recognize them. Also history books are written by the winners, but I don't have to mention that, do I?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Persistence can win over strength, anytime.
 
Tell that to Mohandas Ghandi, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, Siddhartha Gotama and Albert Einstein.
Then go back and check your "FACTS" again.
 
one_raven said:
Tell that to Mohandas Ghandi, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, Siddhartha Gotama and Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...

And your point is? Mine was, that when the British were ruling Ghandi, it didn't matter who was right but who ruled, who was on power...When they got kicked out, they weren't mighty anymore....

I mentioned this earlier in another thread, in politics (and war) good and bad (or right and wrong) are useless adjective. It is winner and loser that makes the world turn....
 
Mine is that Ghandi's mode of taking back power had nothing to do with might or force.
 
It had everything to do with power and force. Ghandi aligned himself with multitudes. He encountered a force greater than he, rather than fight it directly, he found other powers aligned against this force and brought them into alignment with himself. Thus he became more powerful. Rather those aligned to his ideas shared this power. They mattered, they were strong together.

So the British left, rather than confronting such a powerful force. Not worth the damage.
 
Last edited:
one_raven said:
Mine is that Ghandi's mode of taking back power had nothing to do with might or force.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know ...having a gazillion people backing you and your opinions is a helluva lot of power, don't you think?

Might? Isn't the force of a gazillion supporters a form of might?

Force? Isn't the force of a gazillion supporters a form of force?

If Ghandi had been all alone, and no one supporting him, would anything have happened in India? See? In that regard, with that perspective, Ghandi "forced" those changes through his "power" and/or "might".

Baron Max
 
But the tactic was one of simple inaction.
No force was used.
No might was used.
No one fought.
People simply sat down.

Ghandi himself did not use force in any way, he inpired through inaction.
 
..and you saw a contradiction where? OK, let's explain it further. The whole point of the thread is this: the important part in history is not who the morally correct sides are , but who wins the wars/elections. Who is in power...Everything else is bullshit...

I thought that was pretty clear.
 
Last edited:
Syzygys said:
I thought that was pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Apparently it wasn't, so please clarify.

Your title said that might is always just (not simply significant).
Do you think that "might makes right" is correct, or do you think that simply "might makes history"?
There is quite the difference.

Perhaps you should define "just".
 
Might makes history for sure. Just is also a relative term based on political correctness. Let's say was Alexander the Great just by conquering the known world? For the people whom he conquered he was sure an opressor, nevertheless history call him the Great...
 
Did he win? I have to look it up... :)

See, the problem is not MY reasoning...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top