" I've shown you the monster that Gandhi truly was."
Please don't be so melodramatic, you may have certain views about gandhi based on some controversial elements of his philosophy but i can say based on what i know of the man that labelling him a child molesting racist is completely at odds with everything he stood for, and to be honest only highlights your extreme cultural ignorance and your quickness to judge based on inadequate information.
I will deal with the anti-semitic jibe first, Gandhi hjad many very close jewish friends, he was not anti-semitic in any way, you are confusing the principles of his non-violent resistance with anti-semiticism, whether you agree with his philosophy or not labelling him an anti-semite because of it is extremely small minded. I assume when you make the accusation you are referrring to such inflammatory statements he made after the extent holocaust became known:
“The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”
This is in keeping with his non-violent philosophy which he beleived in whole heartedly that if you are a strong enough person to resist an enemy non-violently you offer up your life and allow them to slaughter you until the sheer number of dead melts the hearts of enemies, please don't confuse this with some form of cowardice, his philosophy clearly states that if you are not strong enough to march non-violently towards your death then you must not run away (he despised cowards) you must resist with all the force you have. Now i don't exactly where you receiveed the information that convinced you he was anti-semitic, i just hope it was from reliable source although i have my doubts, please send me on the link that you think proves his anti-semiticism, i would very much like to see it. I can honestly say that Gandhi is anything but an anti-semite, he prescribed the same formula to all peoples (europeans, indians etc.), this anti-semite slur i find quite distastful actually given what i know of the man.
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/gandhi/gandhi_zionism.html
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004268.html
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004268.html
Now the second accusation you made was that he was a chold molester, yes it is true by western standards he was a child molester but again the you have muddied the truth of this, its not like the man was sick and twisted and enjoyed having sex with young adolescent (and somtimes even prepubescent) woman, yes he fondled them and sleat naked with them but again this was part of his philosophy, i you probably think this doesnt matter but again you judge based on inadequate information, im not saying i agree with it, the whole idea was to surround himself with temptation, he had taken a vow of abstinence, thus he had to surround himself with temptation in order to see if he could effectively control and repress his base sexual desires, again this is very related to certain beleifs in hinduism, many Brahmans take a vow of austerity that is braodly erlated to this, i know of many examples but one relevant one is a woman who sleeps with dead decaying bodies, these girls were all certified virgins nd it is well known he never had intercoruse with any of them, you can label him a child molester for engaging in this is you wish but from where im standing it seems tobe total; cultural non-acceptance and misunderstand.
Now was gandhi a racist, yes sadly i must conceed this, he was racist towards black people and he made that perfectly clear in his early days, as stated by me, he was human, and as stated in the show " he never claimed to be a saint, he had all the weaknesses of an ordinary person, and he fell prey to some of the common racism of the time", this doesn't mean i immediately dismiss his entire philoophy or the things he accomplished, we are all human and thus fallable, im not going to preten to be an expert on gandhi as i most certainly am not but from what i do know of his philosophy i know that at the very least he did consider it right to consider all men equal.
If you indulge me i feel some quotes of his may serve my piont here:
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. "
"Hate the sin, love the sinner. "
"I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers."
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err. "
he applied this criteria to himself, does he deserve to be a saint, i don't know, i don't know if any of the saint deserve to cbe called saints, im rather ambivalent on the whole issue but you cannot dismiss him as you have done.
"For a man so against the American regime, he is AGAINST First Amendment rights for students in Public Universities."
Are you fucking serious? This is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen, i mean when you labelled the man a piece of shit i honeslty thought you have something vaguely credible to back it up with, to the best of my knowledge the man has never been proved wrong (and not for a want of trying on the part of the entire american intellegensia). So you say he is against the first amendment rights of students, proof? This makes you look very foolish indeed my friend, you hatred of a man simply because he exposes truth you would rather were left unexposed finally shows your glaring bias, you can claim all you want to be impartial but ithink you've been watching a bit to much Fox.
You expect some 1-2 minunte clip's of chomsky on the Penn and Teller show to serve as credible evidence? That show is largely light entertainment anyway.Their standards of proof are WAAAAYY to low and their editing treats their opponents like idiots.Again i feel sorry for you if you think anything on that show qualifies as evidence of anything except the extremely biased views of Penn and Teller. having watched the show a bit i can honestly say i agree with the following view: " "Bullshit" is not sane, researched, reasonable or civil. It's just whatever Penn & Teller believe with a few statistics thrown in" Surely even you must know how ridiculous it is to present this as evidence? "CriticismIn the episode "Family Values", Penn acknowledged his and Teller's biases, saying, "We're fair and we never take people out of context. We're biased … but we try to be honest."[21] Still, Dennis Cass of Slate magazine has criticized the duo for resorting to the same sensationalism as their targets, stating in a review of the series, "One of the unwritten rules for winning an argument against an inflammatory, irrational opponent is to calmly adhere to a loftier set of rhetorical standards. Penn and Teller showily throw this notion out the window."[22]
Noel Murray, in an otherwise favorable review in The Onion A.V. Club, opined that Penn & Teller, despite being skeptics, are not dedicated to fact-based debunking or inquiry data-retrieval, commenting:
Bullshit! isn't journalism, exactly. The show is one-sided by design: P&T;'s field interviewers rarely confront their subjects with the evidence against them, preferring to let the crackpots ramble on so that Jillette's voice-over rejoinders can score points without inciting a real argument.[23]
During an interview on the January 31, 2007 episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Teller claimed that the final episode of the show would be about "the bullshit of Bullshit!" and would detail all the criticisms that they themselves had of the show,[24] however the series ended before such an episode ever aired."
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_&_Teller:_Bullshit!
Also, please read this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rationally-speaking/200909/dear-penn-and-teller-bullshit
I also find this one particulraly revealing about the shows real motivations:
http://www.green-blog.org/2009/08/05/penn-teller-claims-organic-food-is-bullshit-fails-to-mention-that-their-expert-is-paid-by-monsanto/
In fact this one is even better than the above.
"The man is an asshole."
Again you show clearly your dislike of a man who has dedicated his life to exposing the truth, if you ever took the mans work seriously you would see how moral he is, he has no allegiances, to the left, to america, to anyway, he only has an allegiance to truth, i think your hatred of him stems from your dislike at hearing the hard truth about your own country, you like many others would rather beleive the fary tales deleivered by amost every media outlet in american.
"This isn't the only thing that has pissed me off about the man, but I felt that this shows how he does NOT care about individual rights as much as he cares about pushing left wing political correctness."
Ya im sure you don't like lots of other truths he exposes, what i wnat to know is how the hell you beleive this shows how he does not care about individual rights as much as he does about left wing political correctness, again this is at odds with everything i know about the man, and ive studied him quite a lot, i mean what exactly do you think proves this, is it the part in the clip where Penn Jillette calls him up on the 2% quote?
