If you could remove one person from history...
Offline Okay, I was talking with my father and we somehow got on the whole "if you could kill one person in history" discussion. I was wondering - if you could remove someone in history (and of course assume that history would continue in some fasion similar to what we have today) who would it be? (obviously foir the moral good, not personal vengance)
Example: If you removed hitler then odds are that many Jews would still have been killed and that some war would have started. However, Hitler did speed up the process and play a major part in everyting.
I personally think that Jesus would be my canidate... yes people would be religious and killing would have gone on. However he is (one of) the causes of the dark ages (we were doing Ok with the pagan Gods)
I know that it is sort of pointless to imagine something that is impossiable... but i find this an interesting topic
P.S. Obviously killing is wrong and this is just theoretical
oh, that's easy: jerry falwell.
Well, it's hard for me to say Jesus 'cause I would like to say Mohammed, because of the state of the world now, and how the Western world is going to come into a conflict with the East some point in the very near future. This is going to happen when followers of Mohammed get their hands on WMD's and we will have a serious crisis on our hands. This is common sense, but as Sam Harris has said, think about 14th century Christians with nuclear weapons--it's the same situation.
Anyway, my answer is Richard Simmons.
George Bush. he's made the US kind of unpopular among the Middle East and some European countries.
Muhammed would be a good choice too, though.
I wonder if the flip side (having someone live for 150 years or longer than they would have) would be better to solve teh world's problems - if i could have someone live for longer i would probable choose aristotle or socrates
But as for Bush, i dont know... yes he has made us unpopular but i dont know if he has dome things that will cost millions or billions of lives ( he might have... i just cant see him having that much of an impact)
Yes, i think that mohammid would be my second choice
But if jesus hadent been around, rome might have still been a player (i dont know as the fall was proably inevitable) and able to stop the islamic movement. (All of this is just speculation)
who ever stared the christian-evnjelquests (no idea how to spell it) they scare me so much
Emperor Nero of Rome. Almost ruined the entire Roman civilzation due to his inorgance, (Bush was a good choice too). I wouldnt say Jesus, since I have to see somewhat physical proof that he was real.
Hahahahaha What you dont beleve in the shroud of Turin? (hehe)
But ya, nero is pretty good (was he the one who was fiddeling on the roof while rome burned or was that someone else?)
Can I kill two people?
Karl Marx, Frederic Engels. If only one, then Karl Marx.
Yea, it was him. He also stopped his preganent wife to death.
Ya, i watched a history channel special on him, i think
And as for Karl Marx - I hate communism more than the average person but I dont think that he had a huge impact... Russia just went from the zaars (zarz? i dont know how to spell it) to another form of oppression
Same for china - He just changed the form of tyranny
(Hate communism with a passion though)
tsar or tzar, I seem to recall. I think that if I were to kill one guy, it would have to be someone who would genetically lead to stupidity. Like if Gehngis Kahn was retarded.
I dont know if there is a stupid gene... but stupidity dosent kill, (as much as) agression does - it would be better if there was an agression gene
Yes, i do recal a "T" in it... haha I am lousy at spelling
Aggression is where motivation comes from. Bad application of aggression comes from stupidity.
Motivation comes from incentives and drives. Agression is a part of motivation.
There is no good application of agression (aginst someone) apart from retaliation. The initation of force is almost always wrong. (unless it is in response to threats or some other special circumstance)
retaliation is pointless. If you want to hurt someone, it is in self- defense, or another good reason. Hurting people for prior acts has no benefit. What, exactly, do you get out of harming people for no reason? You cannot preemptively punish people for things they haven't done, either. Threats can only raise defense. Outward Violence is very ignorant and destructive, no matter who you are hurting.
I am sorry, I really meant self defence (mix up of words...)
[quote]Threats can only raise defense[/quote]
This was my point, you stated it more eloquently
However, using force does not always mean physical. In this case I would consider a restraining order force. (just like i would consider stealing or fraud some sort of indirect force)
[quote]Outward Violence is very ignorant and destructive, no matter who you are hurting.[/quote]
Exactly, I only find violence in self defence permissiable.
[quote=Guruite]I dont think that he had a huge impact...[/quote]
...hello? Communist manifesto? Das Kapital? He was extremely influential.
I know what he did, I just dont think that it has had a huge impact on the world in terms of deaths or oppression
Both were happening before communism took over and both continued.
Personally I think he did a whole lot to hurt Atheists in the eyes of the public... but that is just me. - the cold war was resolved and communism is sortof going away.
China is still strong, but (i think) they are becomning a little more democratic (i could be way off)
The U.S.S.R. is gone
N. Korea is going to go away (they just lost the only ace up their sleeve)
Cuba - Castro is near death and i really dont know how this is going down.. but I think that it will lose power also
Communism is near death it diddnt work, and it really diddnt have that much of a world impact (Just a set of lousy principles... like christianity... only less widely accepted)
People inspired by Marx have killed over 200 million people in the past 100 years. I do think we'd be better off without him. Yes oppression existed before him, but in advocating government control of the entire economy, he created a new, different kind of oppression that was in many ways worse than what had come prior.
Yes he made a new worse oppression. I honestly wouldnt have even guessed the list of people topped 20 million... I guess that he was a bigger influence than I thought... I still think that jesus and mohammid were bigger... but still... - I now post him as my third person i would have removed from history
I'd have to say Mohammed, because in my opinion, the Islamic extremist movement is far more dangerous, whereas the Christian one is just... inconveniencing, as well as less widespread among Christians.
However, I agree with the above point that without the Christian movement, the empire would perhaps have been stronger, and we'd all be speaking latin. However, the Christian movement went over an already-present Roman religious revival(started by Augustus, and 'continued', albeit in name alone by later emporers)
Regardless, the two biggest problems facing us I would ocnsider to be The current situation in the middle East, and the current religious situation in the United States.
If getting rid of Jesus would stop both, than that owuld be my choice. However, The teachings of the Quran being applied in more dangerous ways in our time, I would have to choose him, to be wiped from the face of history.
Communist dictators, while short-term dangerous, will have little long term(millenia) impact.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Communist dictators, while short-term dangerous, will have little long term(millenia) impact.[/quote]
Karl Marx wasn't a dictator, he was an author and professor. He wrote the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. He didn't lead any country at any time.
So far, communism hasn't been around for millenia for you to be able to tell whether or not it's negative effects span millenia. I personally think it will.
I doubt it, The countries that have really accepted communism were countries in transition that were poor, and that already had some dictatorship. There are just less of thoes today (that are not islamic) plus, it has been demonstrated that communism just dosent work...
and as for marx, I think agnosticatheist knows that he isnt a dictator... but the only way to implement communism is through a dictatorship... it is really just a useless book without someone to enfore its principles
Wasn't referring to Marx, although he would have to go relatively high on the list(although I think comunism will die out soon enough, since it doesn't...work) I was more referring to the fac that picking specific people who directly caused harm is far more minimal(say the guy who headed the inquisitions or jesus causing more harm). I was simply saying I choose indirect harm, such as ideologues, over specific people, and the largest killers I could think of were communist dictators(Hitler is far behind them) Although I guess the Japanese in pre-WWII China would come close.
Just because communism doesn't work doesn't mean we won't have more communism. Government doesn't work and look how long we've held onto the silly belief that it does. Communism and statism will continue to exist just as christianity and islam. They're all based on the same arguements, the religions are just a little more mystical than statists.
When communism failed, communists were already saying "You're doing it wrong! Here, you should do it like this! You're not real communists! Let me show you how it's done!".
[quote]Government doesn't work and look how long we've held onto the silly belief that it does[/quote]
Umm, I dont understand what you mean by this. The alternitive to government is non-government or anarchy and that is not good at all. Anarchy sucks, people dont conform to rules and a heirarchal society will form - most societies like this suck (as far as i know.. they all suck)
Anarchy never lasts and eventually people will form governmetns on their own, based on force. It takes a long time to get to where we are, governments based More on reason...
Ha yeah. Anarchy is the most pathetic idea of a government.. It's everyone against everyone and all there would be is pure chaos.
I do believe what they meant is that government is proven to be just as faulty as every other option at times.
I am reading straight out of the Libertarian handbook on this one, but you own your life. Nobody else does. All exchange is based on mutual understanding and agreement.
The value of a government is as a moderator. To make sure people DO own their live's. That being said, the government doesn't work as is, because they are taking from us and doing crap they have no right to do. But getting rid of the government is not the best idea. The constitution seems like the best possible starting point, and to throw that away would be stupid.
It depends how you define government. No matter what, some sort of order will come up(whether it be a mafia, politics, mob rule etc... Those are technically 'governments', but I think anarchy specifically refers only to the removal of monopolies on such powers. I'll wait for our forum anarchist master to put his opinion in :).
[quote]The value of a government is as a moderator. To make sure people DO own their live's. That being said, the government doesn't work as is, because they are taking from us and doing crap they have no right to do. But getting rid of the government is not the best idea. The constitution seems like the best possible starting point, and to throw that away would be stupid.[/quote]
Yes, exactly - The purpose of government is to protect people's rights. Anything more than this is wrong.
Anarchy (the absence of any form of government (how I define it) is only possiable for short periods of time, or if people lived solitary lives. Interaction on a consistant basis needs some form of order.
I would kill Abraham, who (according to the bible) founded Judaism. If he didn't then I pick whoever came up with the idea.
I figure that killing Abraham would be the best choice, because all the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) would go with him. Of course, the world would still have religion (and probably many different gods), but it's as close as you can get.
Of course, this would DEFINATELY change modern history, is a VERY big way. I mean, there would be no pilgrims facing religious persecution. The first people in America would probably be pagan. And if they respect nature enough, the native Americans would still be alive and America would still be a wilderness... although, it probably wouldn't be called "America"...
Hmm, Abraham would be a nice guy to knock off....
I dont know if he started the monotheistic religions... I mean they trace their roots to adam..
I personally think that the pagans were better than the christians (less self sacrifice) ... but they werent nice according to our standards...
I was wondering, if paganism had progressed throuout the roman empire (if christianity had not been so fashionable)... Would most of them have turned atheist once science came to them? I mean you can pretty much prove or disprove a sun god... it is this concept of a mystical shadowy god that people can't prove or disprove...
As to the naming of America, I still am baffled we named it after someone who did as little as Vespucci. I mean, he figured out that it was in between Asia and Europe, but they knew that if you hit land before you ran out of all the food you could hold, you landed on something in between Asia and Europe. People knew that well before Columbus, and certainly before Vespucci.
I would remove Mother Teresa.
Don't know why I picked her. :?
bizarre choice. Care to elaborate?
Well, have you seen "Scary Movie 3"?
If I have I don't remember it.
[quote=American Atheist]I would remove Mother Teresa.
Don't know why I picked her. :?[/quote]
can't stand her... she thought of poverty as God's greatest to mankind. and many more things about how poverty and suffering were good... She then played offf of that to cause religious faith
[quote=JoshHickman]If I have I don't remember it.[/quote]
Go watch it, they have these plastic bobbleheads of her in the movie. It Made me dislike her, maybe if you watch it, you will too.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1][quote=American Atheist]I would remove Mother Teresa.
Don't know why I picked her. :?[/quote]
can't stand her... she thought of poverty as God's greatest to mankind. and many more things about how poverty and suffering were good... She then played offf of that to cause religious faith[/quote]
Heh, that gives me another reason. My "Scary Movie 3" was not a good one, but anyone that thinks poverty is from God has a mental problem.
Christopher Columbus.
Take that, eurocentric expansionism!
as long as were choosing some random people
Brigham young... because of that asshole i have to live in Utah... in the middle of the flippin' desert (hehe flippin' ...)
Whoever decided that the series Ghosthunters should ever see teh light of day (same goes for all of the other crap that ruins good tv time)
Adam... (Or i would rename him something that you couldent say without laughting (like poopiepants... nobody would beleve in creationism if adam were named mr. poopiepants))
If I could.. I would like to kill Satan... i mean if he did exist... i think that it would be a cool story... i could write a book
"Why I kicked satan's ass and why god is next"
[quote=Guruite]If I could.. I would like to kill Satan... i mean if he did exist... i think that it would be a cool story... i could write a book
"Why I kicked satan's ass and why god is next"[/quote]
Lmao, I would like to read that.
I may sound stupid for saying this but there has never been a communist country in the world there are 3 steps for reaching true communism 1.Revolution 2. Indoctrination 3.Communism. So far every country stays at indoctrination and never reaches true communism.
And true communism would show that communism is good? It dosent matter if communism has been fully implemented... it has caused many problems already....
Pungent Expert:
Read Orson Scott Card's Pastwatch. Historical bibliography is accurate, and it draws a interesting conclusion. Something you have to read for yourself, but if you think ol' Columbus did the most harm in the world, definitely worth it. Or even if you don't think that, interesting read.
I will read it.. dont have anything against ol' chris yet... but i dont know much about him (other than what my schoolin' taught me........ *sad pause as what was said sinks into the speaker....*)
[quote]Pungent Expert:[/quote]
:) Hehe
Haha, synonyms.
You just can't call it communism it's like seeing a guy who is from Jamaica and calling the man african american when he isn't even from africa. It's like ignorantly saying that all black people are african.Instead of Communism it's better to call it Dictatorship.
Communism and Dictatorships are two completly diffrent things... All (as far as I know) "Communist" governments are under a dictator of some kind, however not all dictatorships are communist. Calling communism a dictatorship dosent fully show the meaning of what the economic system is...