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?

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?

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.

Or try the Chinese water torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture). :)

Tell that to Mohandas Ghandi, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, Siddhartha Gotama and Albert Einstein.


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.

Mine is that Ghandi's mode of taking back power had nothing to do with might or force.

Please note I never stated that the stronger always win.

Mine is that Ghandi's mode of taking back power had nothing to do with might or force.

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.

Mine was, that when the British were ruling Ghandi, it didn't matter who was right but who ruled

Do me a favor, please, and define the diference between "just" and "right".

Synonyms...

Synonyms...

Interesting...

The might is always just
Yet...
it didn't matter who was right but who ruled

..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.

I thought that was pretty clear.
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...

Then by that same reasoning, Hitler's actions were just, correct?

Did he win? I have to look it up... :)

See, the problem is not MY reasoning...

Use "power" rather than might or strength.
It would eliminate any Ghandi-esqe nitpicking based on semantics.

Use "power" rather than might or strength.
It would eliminate any Ghandi-esqe nitpicking based on semantics.

FFS, its Gandhi!

Naboleone was great... and he lost. Thrasymachus.

[QUOTE=Syzygys;1329051]

The Might is Always Just

So slaveowners were Just because they had the power. It was justice to have taken the slaves.

Later when they had them taken away slave owning was no longer just. But we can't treat this retroactively and say it WAS unjust to have the slaves, because the slaves had less power.

Is that it?

And slaves who thought it was unjust to be owned, they were wrong? Their ideas about this were incorrect because they had less power?

Abolitionists when they had less power than the slaveholders were making unjust assertions about the morality of slavery?

It sound like you think we should all think like some collective mind.

Is that it?

Yeap.

And slaves who thought it was unjust to be owned, they were wrong? Their ideas about this were incorrect because they had less power?

There is no objective morality.

What you or others THINK of an event as just or unjust really doesn't matter as much as what the powerful DOES about it.

The might is just = The powerful evaluates/writes history

Gandy? Where?

Damn. Must have missed him.

Yeap.



There is no objective morality.

What you or others THINK of an event as just or unjust really doesn't matter as much as what the powerful DOES about it.

The might is just = The powerful evaluates/writes history


He has put forward an objective definition of morality. He says that might defines it. He is saying that we can determine what is just by looking at the winners. If you are correct than basically he is saying the winners won. Where does morality enter the picture? I could just as easily say might is unjust. Where does he get the right to determine morality, given your objections to mine? Morality should logically fall out of the picture. It adds nothing to the discussion.

A further question is who cares? What possible use is his definition of justice?
The abolitionists should of course have ignored such definitions.

History is written by members of dominant groups and members of other groups.

History is written by historians. Humans whom can make mistakes and have an agenda. The best of them have a truth agenda.

The problem is, some ego maniac eventually comes along and burns/destroys books/ideas he doesn't like. This is how the "strong" write history.

History is written by historians.

The problem is, some ego maniac eventually comes along and burns/destroys books/ideas he doesn't like. This is how the "strong" write history.

Or punishes (threatens to punish) publishers who go against official history.
Or who engage in massive legal, propaganda etc. campaigns against the writers or publishers.
Or who control the vast majority of the 'channels' so that alternate and especially accurate views are swallowed and drown in the signal to noise ratio. (to mix metaphors horribly)

yep

History is written by historians.

And unfortunatelly historians can be wrong or have an agenda A simple example is today's general evaluation of the civil war and Lincoln's role in it.

Most historians think that it was fought for freeing the slaves and Lincoln was a hero, although real/objective historians know it better...

Just because his agenda happens to agree with today's political correct view, it doesn't mean he was right or just by starting the agression against the Southern states....

Just because his agenda happens to agree with today's political correct view, it doesn't mean he was right or just by starting the agression against the Southern states....

But since he won, doesn't that necessarily mean he was right and just?
I don't get it.