I don't hate it.
Under the circumstances, if I wasn't a magician, I'd be in the resistance.

I would have made another group which fights for its rights in non-violent ways. I am a Gandhiji supporter.

Ha.
The man was spineless.
Mind you, it worked, but only because Britain was sterile by then.

Dansariki wrote:Ha.
The man was spineless.
Mind you, it worked, but only because Britain was sterile by then.

...
I'm speechless.
So because he chose to protest without violence, he's "spineless"? It takes far more courage to resist without violence than with it. Look at the monks' protests in Burma. Would you have had the courage to do that? Honestly? Protest non-violently against people who will use violence against you?
Gods, look at your own country's Martin Luther King. Could he have achieved what he did had he used violence? Not a chance.

Yeah, I am a huge supporter of Martin Luther King Jr too. His speech's were so awe-inspiring & so poignant. He was a great man! I hope he had lived to see Barack Obama becoming the President.

On that note, look how far we've come.

*proud fuzzy feeling*

*Same*
I still call it spineless, but only as personal preference.
Ghani and MLK are great men, but it's simply not my style.
Thus, I respect Ghandi, but I still think he's spineless.

How the hell is he spineless? You still haven't given a reason. And how do you respect him by calling him spineless? It's like saying an insult to someone, then saying, with all due respect.

"No offense, but you're a dick. No offense, man, no need to get worked up."

><

I respect him because he did what I could never do.
I still think he's spineless.

You're calling him spineless because he did something you couldn't...? "Haha, you can do that? I can't! You suck!"

Dansariki wrote:I still think he's spineless.

....

I'm sure that's quite the antithesis....

Gah.
It's clearly inexplicable to you people.
And no, not like that Sent, otherwise I'd hate the entire planet, instead of most of it :P

Yes, indeed it is inexplicable to us. Maybe you have your own definition of spineless that's different to that of the entire rest of the world, or maybe you're just insane.

The latter's more likely.
Plus people can think differently from you, Sent.

Dansariki wrote:Gah.
It's clearly inexplicable to you people.

OR you don't know how to explain your incoherent theory and have now resorted to insulting us.

Dansariki wrote:Plus people can think differently from you, Sent.

However, when they think differently from me about the definition of a word, and I think what the dictionary says, chances are they're wrong.
"4. without moral force, resolution, or courage; feeble: a spineless, lily-livered coward."

what the hell are you arguing about now? :P

Gah.
I give.
I'll think of a suitable way to say what I'm trying to say soon enough.

When is that 'soon enough' coming? Seriously, you have no good reason to call Gandhi 'spineless'. Sometimes, I admit, I thought India would have won Independence earlier if Bhagat Singh (who believed bullets must be fought with bullets) had lived longer & Gandhi wasn't such a peace-loving person. But many instances which took place around the world recently has proved me completely wrong. Violence isn't the answer to our solutions. Love, wisdom, steadfast resolution & courage is.

Dansariki wrote:I'll think of a suitable way to say what I'm trying to say soon enough.

In other words you're saying he's spineless because he couldn't fight using violence...

Very American. =P