He did this super weird temptation trial thing, took baths them, etc. He took a vow of chastity when he was 38, but who knows what he was getting up to before then?
I’d heard the niece was younger than 18 when it started but I don’t know enough of the details to say that source is wrong. What he certainly was was a racist and a sexist… Who also ended the British Empire and they’re still a bunch of salty racist sexists themselves so die mad about it.
yeah thats yucky, but idk if was really hush-hush considering he wrote it down himself for publishing.
he was unquestionably racist and sexist through a modern lens but the question with this stuff is how it contrasts with the world around the person.
i always point to Hergé, whose early works were super racist by today’s standard because they followed the style at the time. not using the stereotypes at that point would have made eg Tintin in the Congo harder to read for contemporary audiences due to the shared cultural understanding. later books completely changed in tone as the century progressed.
How is that related to his opinions on international politics? Just because someone is terrible in one aspect of their life, doesn’t mean the rest of their ideas have to be thrown out.
I’m just saying I wouldn’t mind hearing what Jeffery epstien would say over the clean air act
Not what I’m saying. My point is that one flaw, even one as terrible as pedophilia, doesn’t influence all of a person’s opinions. Sure, I wouldn’t ask Gandhi for his views on healthy relationships, and having learned about this I have lost pretty much all respect for him as a person. But his opinions on international politics should be reasonable because of his role as a leader of a protest movement, and likely aren’t impacted by him being a pedo.
With your Epstien example, is there reason to think his opinions on climate science are more well informed than the average person’s? Do you think his role of running his pedo island would impact his views on topics like the clean air act?
The trouble with your line of thinking is that we’d run out of acceptable people’s opinions really quickly. No one is perfect, and it will usually be possible to frame someone’s flaws in a way that makes them a horrible person in all aspects and never worth hearing out. When it gets to “Bob is a racist, Jim is a pedo, Fred is a domestic abuser” (to be clear, in not saying these are equally bad or anything, just some examples of ‘this person is inherently bad because of one thing’) and so on about everyone, who’s left to be worth discussing things with?
Well, I’d certainly want someone else to check his work first!
But even that is beside the point. Gandhi’s achievements aren’t in an inherently rational and objective field. No matter who you are, gravity works the same.
But instead Gandhi’s field is morals, ethics and politics. Those are inherently subjective and about opinions. If you have a really shitty opinion, then yeah, I’ll question your other opinions.
The dude was a pedo, so who knows what really went on inside his noggin.
he was?
Debatable, I guess. Certainly by inclination if not necessarily a rapist.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ghandi-slept-grandniece-historian-tells-uk-government-1460499
He did this super weird temptation trial thing, took baths them, etc. He took a vow of chastity when he was 38, but who knows what he was getting up to before then?
I’d heard the niece was younger than 18 when it started but I don’t know enough of the details to say that source is wrong. What he certainly was was a racist and a sexist… Who also ended the British Empire and they’re still a bunch of salty racist sexists themselves so die mad about it.
yeah thats yucky, but idk if was really hush-hush considering he wrote it down himself for publishing.
he was unquestionably racist and sexist through a modern lens but the question with this stuff is how it contrasts with the world around the person.
i always point to Hergé, whose early works were super racist by today’s standard because they followed the style at the time. not using the stereotypes at that point would have made eg Tintin in the Congo harder to read for contemporary audiences due to the shared cultural understanding. later books completely changed in tone as the century progressed.
How is that related to his opinions on international politics? Just because someone is terrible in one aspect of their life, doesn’t mean the rest of their ideas have to be thrown out.
Well let me stop you there. His opinion on anything was shit that didn’t deserve a moment of time, due to the fact he was a pedo. Better Mr Fish?
Edit: Mr Fish: “I’m just saying I wouldn’t mind hearing what Jeffery Epstien would say over the Clean Air Act.”
Not what I’m saying. My point is that one flaw, even one as terrible as pedophilia, doesn’t influence all of a person’s opinions. Sure, I wouldn’t ask Gandhi for his views on healthy relationships, and having learned about this I have lost pretty much all respect for him as a person. But his opinions on international politics should be reasonable because of his role as a leader of a protest movement, and likely aren’t impacted by him being a pedo.
With your Epstien example, is there reason to think his opinions on climate science are more well informed than the average person’s? Do you think his role of running his pedo island would impact his views on topics like the clean air act?
The trouble with your line of thinking is that we’d run out of acceptable people’s opinions really quickly. No one is perfect, and it will usually be possible to frame someone’s flaws in a way that makes them a horrible person in all aspects and never worth hearing out. When it gets to “Bob is a racist, Jim is a pedo, Fred is a domestic abuser” (to be clear, in not saying these are equally bad or anything, just some examples of ‘this person is inherently bad because of one thing’) and so on about everyone, who’s left to be worth discussing things with?
If it turned out that Newton had a thing for kids, would you advocate for throwing out his laws?
Probably wouldn’t hold him up as a moral role model
That’s a different question.
If you want to admit your chosen comparison was disingenuous I don’t mind.
Personally I’d have gone with Aristotelian ethics, as he was a noted slavery defender.
Are we having the same conversation?
You don’t seem to be.
deleted by creator
Well, I’d certainly want someone else to check his work first!
But even that is beside the point. Gandhi’s achievements aren’t in an inherently rational and objective field. No matter who you are, gravity works the same.
But instead Gandhi’s field is morals, ethics and politics. Those are inherently subjective and about opinions. If you have a really shitty opinion, then yeah, I’ll question your other opinions.
Apples and battleships here.