tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702834614503056110.post6487454364756549335..comments2010-01-05T14:02:04.897-03:00Alexandre Linharesnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702834614503056110.post-72578084426140998552008-08-06T11:02:00.000-03:002008-08-06T11:02:00.000-03:00One thing that strikes me out here is the word "evil". <A HREF="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/quotes-7.html" REL="nofollow">Overcoming bias</A> has a discussion about it, concerning the quote: <BR/><BR/>"The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands."<BR/> -- Robert Bruce Thompson<BR/><BR/>I love Peter Turney's framing on comment #1.Alexandre Linhareshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17410281998806896354noreply@blogger.com