NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose you are given the ability to time travel for the sole purpose of assassinating, or more humanely, exiling just one person.

Would you use this ability?

If so, who would you assassinate or exile into isolation from affecting history?


With my premature knowledge in history, I am having a hard time between Marx, Engels, and al-Wahhab. Communism has done nothing good for us, save for its role in the USSR involvement of WW2. The state of Islam and present-day Saudi Arabia, is I believe to be heavily influenced by his ideals.

My father!

*disappears*

John Maynard Keynes

No, but if I could it would be Thomas Edison.

We'd all be much better off if Nicola Tesla's technologies had become mainstream, instead of being suppressed by Edison's inferior designs.

Muhammad, or L. Ron Hubbard.

Edison. Tesla was a much better inventor, and then maybe he'd actually get credit for most of his designs.

I would not assassinate anyone, the result could be worse than what we have now.

If I absolutely had to, though, I'd probably assassinate one of the following:

Moses - nip that infernal Abrahamic behemoth in the bud.
Mary - no Christ, no Christians
Mohammed - no Mohammed, no Islam
Aneas - If the story is true, then I would have prevented the establishment of Rome.

Mad Dog Tannen, probably.

I will pick Ayn Rand so most her followers would go back to being survivalists.

I will pick Ayn Rand so most her followers would go back to being survivalists.

Beat me to it.

I screwed up the poll :( I should've added "Yes, George W. Bush HURR"

The Edison option is very interesting, what would the world be like with more Tesla?

Okay, this is fairly elaborate, so bear with me.
First, I'm time travel forward into Star Wars: A New Hope era and steal the death star. I'd them time travel with the death star back into the past, and collect an army of dinosaurs. Once I have my dino-army, I would go further in time and get a bunch of Roman legionnaries. I would then go forward again and get a cloning machine. I would clone the dinosaurs and legionnaries, then travel back to the current day. I'd then put the legionnaries on one side of the world, and the dinosaurs on the other, then make them fight. In the ensuing chaos, I would crash the death star into the moon, making the moon explode and thereby halting Dr. Eggman's plan to blow up the moon with his super moon cannon. I would fall through space go into orbit around earth, eventually hitching a ride on a crashing satellite (I can breathe in space). Once I've landed, I'd make my way through the dinosaur/legionnare war to assassinate the President, whereupon I would claim my new place as Head of United States of Me-erica. I would stop the dinosaurs and legionnaries from fighting and unite them into one army, then take over the world.

Is my plan not wonderful?

Adam Smith or David Ricardo perhaps.

the person who invented this time travelling device. this is too much power in anyone's hands.

One small problem (noted in red)
Okay, this is fairly elaborate, so bear with me.
First, I'm time travel forward into Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back era and steal the death star. no death star in Empire Strikes Back. It was destroyed in NEW HOPE and rebuilt in RETURN OF THE JEDI I'd them time travel with the death star back into the past, and collect an army of dinosaurs. Once I have my dino-army, I would go further in time and get a bunch of Roman legionnaries. I would then go forward again and get a cloning machine. I would clone the dinosaurs and legionnaries, then travel back to the current day. I'd then put the legionnaries on one side of the world, and the dinosaurs on the other, then make them fight. In the ensuing chaos, I would crash the death star into the moon, making the moon explode and thereby halting Dr. Eggman's plan to blow up the moon with his super moon cannon. I would fall through space go into orbit around earth, eventually hitching a ride on a crashing satellite (I can breathe in space). Once I've landed, I'd make my way through the dinosaur/legionnare war to assassinate the President, whereupon I would claim my new place as Head of United States of Me-erica. I would stop the dinosaurs and legionnaries from fighting and unite them into one army, then take over the world.

Is my plan not wonderful?

Zarathustra. Take that, abrahamics!

the person who invented this time travelling device. this is too much power in anyone's hands.

Aha, but then he would not have invented the device so you would not have went back in time so he would not have invented the device so you would not have went back in time so he would not have invented the device so you would not have went back in time so...

And, I haven't watched Star Wars in eons. Must watch it again some time.

Jesus. Or better yet Mary.

Aha, but then he would not have invented the device so you would not have went back in time so he would not have invented the device so you would not have went back in time so he would not have invented the device so you would not have went back in time so...

And, I haven't watched Star Wars in eons. Must watch it again some time.

well... when you get that death star... don't forget to cover that 1 metre wide opening. kay? ;)

Aristotle. Because he was so reverred for so long that people did not think further... ;)

Philip IV of France

I would not assassinate anyone, the result could be worse than what we have now.

If I absolutely had to, though, I'd probably assassinate one of the following:

Moses - nip that infernal Abrahamic behemoth in the bud.
Mary - no Christ, no Christians
Mohammed - no Mohammed, no Islam
Aneas - If the story is true, then I would have prevented the establishment of Rome.

Why them? Rome was a uniting force for it's first 600 or so years, Christianity has it good and bad parts, as does Judaism and Islam. Why not assassinate Buddha too? Or Ron Hubbard?

Bob Barr.

Bob Barr.

But he looks like Commissioner Gordon...:(

But he looks like Commissioner Gordon...:(

Commissioner Gordon if he was older and more miserable and grumpy.

Zarathustra. Take that, abrahamics!

Nobody calls him Zarathustra, his name's Zoroaster.

Commissioner Gordon if he was older and more miserable and grumpy.

So he's Commissioner Gordon in his sixties, he's still the Commissioner! :tongue:

I will pick Ayn Rand so most her followers would go back to being survivalists.

Survivalism is a bad thing now?

Every religious leader I can find and exterminate at birth. Damn "Holy" wars will end human existence at some point.

Nobody calls him Zarathustra, his name's Zoroaster.

If you want to get that technical, since he was persian, maybe you should call him by his persian name Zartosht (or, in persian, زرتشت ).

I'm glad that two of the first posts involved Tesla.

Aneas - If the story is true, then I would have prevented the establishment of Rome.I'm confused by this. What good would this do?

Every religious leader I can find and exterminate at birth. Damn "Holy" wars will end human existence at some point.

Religion as opposed to mindless land grabbing? Face it, religion is rarely the real cause of fighting, religion is only used as the scapegoat.

Religion as opposed to mindless land grabbing? Face it, religion is rarely the real cause of fighting, religion is only used as the scapegoat.And killing the religious leaders who shaped this world would do nothing. Others would sprout up in their place.

My own grandfather. Just to see what happens.

Whoever it was at Fox who decided to cancel Firefly.

The CEO of OMAC.

The inventor of time travel. I'd pretend to be from millennia in the future, a world ravaged by death stars and dino-armies lead by Roman legionnaires battling survivalists looking for an eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher to worship.

Gavrilo Princip. No WW1 - no Russian Revolution - no Holocaust - no Gulags - no WW2 - no Mao - no Cold War.

I'd like to take out Hitler, but then everything would go all Red Alert on us.

I'd probably have to go with the person who founded Blackwater then.

Gavrilo Princip. No WW1 - no Russian Revolution - no Holocaust - no Gulags - no WW2 - no Mao - no Cold War.

Nah. Something else would have set off WW1 if Gavrilo Princip were taken out of the picture.

You'd probably want to go back a little farther and take out, say, Otto von Bismarck, or Napoleon Bonaparte, or somethin'.

Nah. Something else would have set off WW1 if Gavrilo Princip were taken out of the picture.

Yes, I know that a lot (most) historians think that. But think of it... it'd be awesome to try.

I'd like to take out Hitler, but then everything would go all Red Alert on us.

I'd probably have to go with the person who founded Blackwater then.

Unfortunately Hitler (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlersTimeTravelExemptionAct) has his time travel exemption act.

Yes, I know that a lot (most) historians think that. But think of it... it'd be awesome to try.

Well, if they're right, you'll have just wasted your free time-travel-and-assassination. That's not awesome.

Unfortunately Hitler (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlersTimeTravelExemptionAct) has his time travel exemption act.

This place is crawling with tropers. I barely noticed any of them until I started using the site regularly, and now they're everywhere. Among the regulars, too, not just newbies who 'ported over from TVTropes. Why hadn't I heard of any of you in, say, 2006?

Okay, this is fairly elaborate, so bear with me.
First, I'm time travel forward into Star Wars: A New Hope era and steal the death star.

You mean backward. It happened a long time ago.

In a galaxy far, far away.

Which means you'll need to make sure your time machine is also a space machine.

Donald Knuth. For inventing Tex and MMIX. He may be a genius but some more reasonable person could have written a text formatting language which actually makes sense...

John Maynard Keynes

Why?

Adam Smith or David Ricardo perhaps.
Fan of mercantilist rule by guilds of businessmen, are you?

For myself, as far as any single person whose work more or less directly led to the most people being killed goes, Karl Marx would be the obvious target.

But realistically, if I actually had the chance to do it, I wouldn't.

This place is crawling with tropers. I barely noticed any of them until I started using the site regularly, and now they're everywhere. Among the regulars, too, not just newbies who 'ported over from TVTropes. Why hadn't I heard of any of you in, say, 2006?

In 2006 I hadn't heard of TVTropes. I only found out about it when someone linked to it here.

You mean backward. It happened a long time ago.

In a galaxy far, far away.

Which means you'll need to make sure your time machine is also a space machine.

Actually, what happened was that the galaxy that Star Wars was set in got shoop da whoop'd back a few hundred thousand years into the past. The whole galaxy, tech and all. So, it actually happened in the future, only in the past. In the years to come, the Corellian George Lucas would eventually be replaced by a Yuuzhan Vong who would bring shame to the name Star Wars with a series of bad prequels and annoying characters.

Gaius Julius Caesar. Give the Roman Republic half a chance to survive.

Mohammed, because the sheer trolling potential of killing the insane pedophile is glorious.

In 2006 I hadn't heard of TVTropes. I only found out about it when someone linked to it here.

Hah. Irony strikes again.

Donald Knuth. I mentioned him before but no one seems to have noticed... Didn't anyone take a class on algorithms at uni???

Okay, this is fairly elaborate, so bear with me.

-snip-

Is my plan not wonderful?

Can I have whatever you're on?

well... when you get that death star... don't forget to cover that 1 metre wide opening. kay? ;)

I thought it was 2 meters wide.

Whoever it was at Fox who decided to cancel Firefly.

The CEO of OMAC.

I wonder if it's a threat if you answer a hypothetical question, and it involves the person that is still alive....

As for me, whoever decided that converting Pagans to Christianity back in Medieval time was a good idea.

Fan of mercantilist rule by guilds of businessmen, are you?

Actually, no.
They would be overthrown either way though,
I just hope that instead of a system based of self and greed it would be replaced by a system of selflessness and generosity.
I know, I know, but one can always dream.

For myself, as far as any single person whose work more or less directly led to the most people being killed goes, Karl Marx would be the obvious target.

Marx´s idea never killed anyone.
However, people that used that idea as a stepping stone did.

But realistically, if I actually had the chance to do it, I wouldn't.

Me neither.
I would use the device to learn about the past and the future.

My gold digging step mother.

Actually, no.
They would be overthrown either way though,
I just hope that instead of a system based of self and greed it would be replaced by a system of selflessness and generosity.
I know, I know, but one can always dream.


You haven't read any anything by either of them, have you.

I'm glad that two of the first posts involved Tesla.

I'm confused by this. What good would this do?

Because then my high school years wouldn't have been tormented by having to translate Caesar and Vergil.

Adam Smith or David Ricardo perhaps.

Not Ricky Ricardo?

Survivalism is a bad thing now?

Not at all. You guys would do your complaining in the back country. *nods*

Can I have whatever you're on?

I'm not Michael Phelps.

well... when you get that death star... don't forget to cover that 1 metre wide opening. kay?

I'll put a screen door over it. Surely, with a budget that can make a giant laser beam station of death, they could have bought some blinds or something from Ikea to put in front of the vent.

I'd kill Hitler's parents shortly after he was born, then arrange for him to be adopted by a wealthy Jewish family. The ultimate nature vs. nurture experiment.

You haven't read any anything by either of them, have you?

I have not read anything by them no.
About them however...

It appears that you forgot the question mark.
No worries though, I added it for you.

I have not read anything by them no.
About them however...


I've read that Karl Marx was an evil Jewish baby killer.


It appears that you forgot the question mark.
No worries though, I added it for you.

Nah, I think the question mark wouldn't sound right. I want my voice to go down on the 'have you', not go up, as it would if you were to read it with a question mark.

Donald Knuth. I mentioned him before but no one seems to have noticed... Didn't anyone take a class on algorithms at uni???

*coughs* yes...no...maybe....

*jumps into a fountain and starts screaming "I AM THE KRAKEN!"

I've read that Karl Marx was an evil Jewish baby killer.


No no no. He didn't do the killing. He just used them to butter his bread.

I'll put a screen door over it. Surely, with a budget that can make a giant laser beam station of death, they could have bought some blinds or something from Ikea to put in front of the vent.

They actually did buy the death star from Ikea, the reason why that gap remained was because that was the missing piece.

I've read that Karl Marx was an evil Jewish baby killer.

I think I read that too somewhere.

Nah, I think the question mark wouldn't sound right. I want my voice to go down on the 'have you', not go up, as it would if you were to read it with a question mark.

You know, I almost figured that was so,
but I couldn't be sure.

They actually did buy the death star from Ikea, the reason why that gap remained was because that was the missing piece.

It was probably for the best in the end,
and now they don't have to start over thanks to all the extra parts they got.
,)

They actually did buy the death star from Ikea, the reason why that gap remained was because that was the missing piece.

I like the piece of fanwank that states that the energy built up by absorbing the recoil caused by using the superlaser to destroy Alderaan was stored in that one spot while they slowly vented it into space, so destroying it could release enough energy to blow up the whole Death Star. It makes a fair sight more sense than anything George Lucas ever put in the series.

Come to think of it, maybe I should go back in time and kill George Lucas. That way Star Wars and all its fanboys would never come to be. I'm sorely tempted.

Why?

his dribble did more harm then good.

I would destroy the time machine. It's too dangerous to keep around.

EDIT: Nope, this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber) has pissed me off one too many times, he just has to go. Then I'll destroy the time machine.

Not Hitler. The Holocaust needed to happen, because now it will never happen again.

Perhaps Osama Bin Laden?

Suppose you are given the ability to time travel for the sole purpose of assassinating, or more humanely, exiling just one person.

Would you use this ability?

If so, who would you assassinate or exile into isolation from affecting history?


With my premature knowledge in history, I am having a hard time between Marx, Engels, and al-Wahhab. Communism has done nothing good for us, save for its role in the USSR involvement of WW2. The state of Islam and present-day Saudi Arabia, is I believe to be heavily influenced by his ideals.
Your choices are fucking boring!

Neither Marx nor Engels are worth your bullet if it weren't for people who were willing to put their free speech into action.

And who's this Wahabababababa-yabba-dabba-doo-dude?

You fail your "go back in time" mission. Miserably!

Not Hitler. The Holocaust needed to happen, because now it will never happen again.

*blink*

Ahhhhh........Can somebody explain the logic in that to me?

I think we should launch the missiles because after that it will never happen again!

*snip*

If I absolutely had to, though, I'd probably assassinate one of the following:

Moses - nip that infernal Abrahamic behemoth in the bud.

My choice too.

Neither Marx nor Engels are worth your bullet if it weren't for people who were willing to put their free speech into action.

And who's this Wahabababababa-yabba-dabba-doo-dude?

You fail your "go back in time" mission. Miserably!

You're no fun. You fail you ruse.

I'd kill Hitler's parents shortly after he was born, then arrange for him to be adopted by a wealthy Jewish family. The ultimate nature vs. nurture experiment.

did that on an episode of "Twilight zone" ("Cradle of Darkness, pt. 1 - click for part two on link to the right) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu8P2oszdmA) I thought it was a good episode.

I think in order to make such a determination, you might actually have to investigate much smaller moments and see how they fit into the bigger whole. What would have happened, for example, if rather than killing Hitler, you were able to determine who it was who negatively affected him so that he was so cold-hearted and arrogant. Maybe more than one person - but maybe not. Father? Mother? Who ultimately caused his emotional warpedness that enabled him to justify his cruelty?

just a point for discussion.

(btw: rather than killing Mohammed, you'd need to kill Ishmael, or Esau).

This is my answer of the ONE person I'd like to remove from his place in history...

not kidding: the person who was responsible for canceling "Firefly." *Joss Whedon's brilliant tv show*

Kid you not - 5 years after the fact, every time I watch an episode, at some point, I have an overwhelming urge to hunt the idiot down and smack him/her upside the head--- really, really hard. I'd love to be able to have sent that nit on a LONG vacation before s/he made that decision!

historically, not a big deal - but I'd feel better!!!

Actually, no.
They would be overthrown either way though,
Why? Without Ricardo and Smith no one would have sat down and figured out that trade is actually beneficial to both sides, as opposed to it being a zero-sum game. So there would have been no reason to get away from the guilds (or their successors). Even as late as 19th century Britain there were powerful lobbies devoted to trying to suppress free trade in favour of mercantilism.

I just hope that instead of a system based of self and greed it would be replaced by a system of selflessness and generosity.
I know, I know, but one can always dream.
You can dream, but when you do, you should also think. A world of selflessness would be a nightmarish dystopia because life requires selfishness in order to sustain itself.

Marx´s idea never killed anyone.
However, people that used that idea as a stepping stone did.
Marx pretty much pre-programmed what happened into his theories. He made it extremely clear that history was a mechanical process (hence absolving those who followed his theories from moral responsibilities- they were merely products of their economic environment, right?), that there would be a dictatorship of the workers that would violently take control of the livelihoods (and by extension: lives) of every person in society, and most importantly he never spelled out what should happen afterwards. He left people with infinite, violent power and no moral guidance other than history's progress being inevitable to figure out how to make the most powerful governments in history disappear by themselves.

Worse: even during his lifetime, knowing perfectly well that capitalism hadn't reached the stage where he prophesised its self-destruction a workable transition to socialism, he supported revolutions against the capital-owning parts of society.

So exactly how is anyone supposed to look at that? His "scientific" theory involved the massive destruction of anyone who would stand against "the workers" (=its proponents) and whatever non-political basis there was to it was defeated by his ignoring that basis when he supported socialist revolutions long before marxism tells us the world is ready.

And that concludes my threadjack.

I could kill Darwin, Voltaire, and Alisdaire Crowley, and that would eliminate a lot of thorns in my side - but killing is immoral.

Am I the first one to say Adam (or Eve, doesn't really matter)?

I could kill Darwin, Voltaire, and Alisdaire Crowley, and that would eliminate a lot of thorns in my side - but killing is immoral.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Am I the first one to say Adam (or Eve, doesn't really matter)?

No, I responded "They don't exist." in the last thread like this.

Oh, and they don't exist.

No, I responded "They don't exist." in the last thread like this.

Oh, and they don't exist.

Of course not. They died thousands of years ago.

Of course not. They died thousands of years ago.

Well, sure, there must have been AN Adam and AN Eve, but the ones in the bible were 100% fictitious.

Whoever it was at Fox who decided to cancel Firefly.

This.

or L. Ron Hubbard

Well, sure, there must have been AN Adam and AN Eve, but the ones in the bible were 100% fictitious.

Ah, that's what you meant.

The assassin of JFK. I can picture it in the news the day after:

Assassin of JFK Assassinated

The assassin of JFK. I can picture it in the news the day after:

Assassin of JFK Assassinated

That'd be a cool topic. Which assassin would you assassinate?

Whichever one shot JFK... I'd arrive there as a detective, find the assassin, and assassinate him. Easy, right? (Maybe not...)

The first guy who said, "I wonder what it would be like if I weren't such a monkey."

I would assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand because I already know what happened and it would be funny to do it using an RPG and see the car split in two and tumble through the air trailing burning bits of Franz and Sophie. I'd stick around and use my superior knowledge to assume control of the war effort and make myself wealthier than God. Can you imagine what it would have been like with trans-sonice fighters in WW1?

Knee-jerk reaction: Hitler
Logical reaction: Umm... can't think of anyone worse than Hitler... wait a minute - Amalek!

I would travel back in time to the eve of Amalek's attack on the Hebrews, and take him out in front of his people with an airstrike. This destroys the Amalekite nation, not to mention Haman. Bonus points - Jewish mythology suggests that the worst anti-Semites are in fact Amalekites, so there's a good chance I'll take out Hitler in the process.

The guy who canceled Firefly also ranks high on my list.

Adam.

*dusts off hands*

The earth would be a quieter place.

Why is it always assasination? Why can't we heal a sick person, or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse, or some other benevolent activity?

Why is it always assasination? Why can't we heal a sick person, or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse, or some other benevolent activity?

Killing is more fun.

Why is it always assasination? Why can't we heal a sick person, or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse, or some other benevolent activity?I suppose people are more attracted to violence?

Why is it always assasination?

It takes a less amount of evil people to screw up the world as much as the amount of good people to undo the damage, so "correcting" history is easier done by removing said evils than to conduct good.

Also violence.


Why can't we heal a sick person,

I suppose healing sick people would be an interesting question. What would have happened if the time traveller were to heal Cao Cao of his brain tumor? What if he cured the plague?


or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse

Which starving person would you feed to more effectively correct the timeline than to assassinate somebody?


or some other benevolent activity?

Okay, I would arm Baghdad 1258 with anti-siege napalm. Or a Great General to create a Military Academy and 100 city population to hurry production of Longbowman with 3x City Garrison promotions.

Why is it always assasination? Why can't we heal a sick person, or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse, or some other benevolent activity?

Hippie.

Either JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. It's too hard to choose.

Either JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. It's too hard to choose.

Thus preventing their assassination! Clever...

If my degree taught me one thing, it's that processes, not individuals, drive history.

[/fun]

If my degree taught me one thing, it's that processes, not individuals, drive history.

[/fun]

Would there have been a communistic movement without Marx and Engels?

Whoever it was at Fox who decided to cancel Firefly.

didn't see this post. thought I was being really clever when I mentioned it - now I see there are other wise souls here.


whatcha' doin' next weekend??? want to go hunting for a nitwit?:p

Would there have been a communistic movement without Marx and Engels?

Of course there would have been; Marx and Engels' thinking didn't come out of a vaccuum.

Of course there would have been; Marx and Engels' thinking didn't come out of a vaccuum.

but Mr. Orec's did.

Of course there would have been; Marx and Engels' thinking didn't come out of a vaccuum.

No I thought they were sub-divine interventions :) So you are saying that they are more like proxy thinkers to the human civilization.

The assassin of JFK.

Been done. And without time-travel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby Do they not teach history anymore?

Also, what is the deal with Firefly? Just watch, next time someone flies a plane into a building, it'll be because of that show being canceled, not because of something as pedestrian as religious fanaticism.

Been done. And without time-travel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby Do they not teach history anymore?

Newsflash: NSG brings trolls trolling trolls to a whole new level. :p

No I thought they were sub-divine interventions :) So you are saying that they are more like proxy thinkers to the human civilization.

I guess you could call it that. What I'm saying is that they, like most historical figures, were expressions of a broader zeitgeist. If they hadn't been around there would have been someone else to take their place, more or less.

but Mr. Orec's did.

Not exactly. His thinking went into a vaccuum.

Ronald Reagan because it would really impress Jodie Foster

Whichever one shot JFK... I'd arrive there as a detective, find the assassin, and assassinate him. Easy, right? (Maybe not...)

have you not watched red dwarf?

The assassin of JFK. I can picture it in the news the day after:

Assassin of JFK Assassinated

You do realize... that actually happened?

You do realize... that actually happened?

the time machine is real :wink:

now if you'll excuse me I'm off to assassinate Alexander the Great

Killing is overrated. There are more interesting ways to destroy a person. :)

Killing is overrated. There are more interesting ways to destroy a person. :)

you' know I was wondering how all this mud got everywhere

Donald Knuth. For inventing Tex and MMIX. He may be a genius but some more reasonable person could have written a text formatting language which actually makes sense...

Hey, no fair. TeX is fantastic.

Can we travel back in time and prevent an assassination?

you' know I was wondering how all this mud got everywhere

It was like that when I got there, I swear.

;)

And killing the religious leaders who shaped this world would do nothing. Others would sprout up in their place.

Right, and not only that, but to presume on a world 'free' of religious wars, we would simply have wars that are started for other, secular (though equal) reasons.

War is part of the human condition. You want to end war? Assassinate the missing link (as it were) and end humanity altogether.

didn't see this post. thought I was being really clever when I mentioned it - now I see there are other wise souls here.

whatcha' doin' next weekend??? want to go hunting for a nitwit?:p

k. I'll bring the flux capacitor, you bring the lasers and the exploding cheese.

Adam Smith, John Locke, and out of the neo-liberal economists likely Milton Friedman.

Probably, Nick Cannon... so could marry Mariah Carey!!! :D

Better the devil you know...

Adam Smith, John Locke, and out of the neo-liberal economists likely Milton Friedman.

Why on earth would you assassinate John Locke?

Adam Smith or David Ricardo perhaps.

Did you not do well in Mico? Poooooor thing.

Adam Smith, John Locke, and out of the neo-liberal economists likely Milton Friedman.

Why don't you like academics?

It takes a less amount of evil people to screw up the world as much as the amount of good people to undo the damage, so "correcting" history is easier done by removing said evils than to conduct good.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Eve. Or God. One or the other. The whole idea of humans was a bad one. As was said in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This is widely seen as a bad idea and has been hotly debated since."

Mohammed's father.

Wouldn't eveh have to whack him, just send him to somewhere in Christendom and make a Christian out of him.

And suddenly, no Dark Ages and we're having this conversation at Alpha Centauri.

Mohammed's father.

Wouldn't eveh have to whack him, just send him to somewhere in Christendom and make a Christian out of him.

And suddenly, no Dark Ages and we're having this conversation at Alpha Centauri.

So you think what used to be called the Dark Ages were caused by Islam, rather than Islam preserving the knowledge of classical Greece and Rome from being destroyed by Christianity?

I know its been said before, but killing or eliminating Muhammad's role in starting Islam would not prevent the religion from starting.

So you think what used to be called the Dark Ages were caused by Islam, rather than Islam preserving the knowledge of classical Greece and Rome from being destroyed by Christianity?

I think we have all had it up to here with your "science" :mad:

*holds wild cave orgy off my tits on herbs*

Mohammed's father.

Wouldn't eveh have to whack him, just send him to somewhere in Christendom and make a Christian out of him.

And suddenly, no Dark Ages and we're having this conversation at Alpha Centauri.

Wasn't Muhammad a Christian in the first place? Just kill him and get it over with.

So you think what used to be called the Dark Ages were caused by Islam, rather than Islam preserving the knowledge of classical Greece and Rome from being destroyed by Christianity?

Did you know that ancient Islamic linguists (when creating or amending the rules for the Arabic language) were so infatuated with Plato that they jerryrigged verbs into every sentence even where there aren't actually verbs just so they could fulfill Plato's rule of what a proper sentence is?

I know its been said before, but killing or eliminating Muhammad's role in starting Islam would not prevent the religion from starting.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Individuals don't effect history. They are entrepreneurs taking hold of a broader movement, who give it a face, but they don't initiate or create.

Individuals don't effect history. They are entrepreneurs taking hold of a broader movement, who give it a face, but they don't initiate or create.

Bullshit. If I start some sort of political movement, then I'm not just part of the world's natural order or some bullshit like that, I'm changing history.

Bullshit. If I start some sort of political movement, then I'm not just part of the world's natural order or some bullshit like that, I'm changing history.

If you start a political movement that actually succeeds in changing history, then the support for your cause was already there. Again, you put a name to it and gave it a face (your own), but you either started the movement in response to support or started it and received support that already existed, but was not organized.

If you start a political movement that actually succeeds in changing history, then the support for your cause was already there. Again, you put a name to it and gave it a face (your own), but you either started the movement in response to support or started it and received support that already existed, but was not organized.

But there wasn't any support for Islam really, it was spread by the sword.

To many too choose from, Hitler, Stalin, and Marx, would be a few I could think of....

Did you not do well in Mico? Poooooor thing.

What is Mico?

And I would thank you for not trying to insult me again.
What you could do is explain to me why you think it would not work,
regarding the outcome I wished for.

To many too choose from, Hitler, Stalin, and Marx, would be a few I could think of....

Whoever chose the spelling of "Worcester"?

Nobody calls him Zarathustra, his name's Zoroaster.Ah, I guess that explains why the former has four times as many hits on google than the latter, because no one calls him that. Especially not Nietzsche.

Gaius Julius Caesar. Give the Roman Republic half a chance to survive.The republic needed reform. There's some chance it would have survived if Caesar wasn't killed. So I'd sooner opt to kill his assassins, and see how that works out.

Donald Knuth. I mentioned him before but no one seems to have noticed... Didn't anyone take a class on algorithms at uni???Yes, I did, and therefore I don't see what good would come of assassinating him. Or would you want to take credit for his work?
I guess it is a bit annoying most decent algorithms have already been invented.

Why is it always assasination? Why can't we heal a sick person, or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse, or some other benevolent activity?Hmm. How about giving King Harold II of England a bit of protective facewear. And see how William the Bastard does then.
Or maybe give Socrates an antitoxin before he's sentenced to taking hemlock.

Ah, I guess that explains why the former has four times as many hits on google than the latter, because no one calls him that. Especially not Nietzsche.

Nobody calls him that anymore, perhaps I should have said.

But there wasn't any support for Islam really, it was spread by the sword.

It was spread both by the sword and word, with the latter being more prominent and important.



If we ignore divine origins of Islam purely for academic discussion, Islam was a tremendously forward thinking social force in dark Arabia.

One social concept Islam pioneered, which was completely radical and unheard of in polytheistic Arabia, was women's rights. Islamophobes may have a hard time digesting that, but Islam in the context of Arabia where daughters were being buried alive, was nothing less than incredible.

I don't want to argue how many Christians were similarly backward thinking and barbaric like current-day fanatic Muslims, but the level of Islam bashing mentioned by some here, is frankly ignorant and hurtful of our mission in eradicating extremism.

Nobody calls him that anymore, perhaps I should have said.Even if we ignore hits that reference Nietzsche, that still leaves more than double the hits for Zarathustra compared to Zoroaster.
Which isn't to say I might not agree to the fact that 70% of humanity are imbecilic degenerates, but they still call him that.

If we ignore divine origins of Islam purely for academic discussion, Islam was a tremendously forward thinking social force in dark Arabia.Maybe we should assassinate the people responsible for stagnating its scientific and social development.

Blame al-Ghazali. (Incoherence of the Philosophers) He smashed metaphysics!

Maybe we should assassinate the people responsible for stagnating its scientific and social development.

Which is why I included Abd al-Wahhab in my OP, who was very influential fanaticizing Islam.

Yes, he is the root of modern Sunni fundamentalism, but naturalistic metaphysics had been dead for centuries before him. Ghazali and his followers insisted that God be involved in natural processes everywhere along the way, trivializing scientific investigation.

For example, if I drop a stone, it falls to the ground not because of gravity as an independent phenomenon---but because of God's will. God is not the "first cause" who set the natural order in place to work by its own mechanics but permeates reality immanently as the cause of everything. There may be a general trend in phenomenon, but it is not necessary for there to be. Miracles are not an exception in this framework but only surprising from a frame of reference that draws invalid generalizations.

Al-Ghazali is responsible for trivializing all learning but religious learning. He helped the Islamic world collapse into itself. While you may fairly attribute modern political, radical Islam to al-Wahhab, al-Ghazali bears direct responsibility for destroying the Golden Age of Muslim learning.

George Lucas pre prequels. Not only would this hopefully give someone a chance to make the prequels better...we also wouldn't have had the latest indiana jones flick....which was not enjoyable.

Will not use it. Too high a risk of grandfather paradox or a temporally-originated Massive Existence Failure.

I wouldn't do it because uh, I have no particular desire to murder someone in cold blood.

Why is it always assasination? Why can't we heal a sick person, or feed a starving person, or save a child from abuse, or some other benevolent activity?

We're fighting fire with shotguns.

his dribble did more harm then good.

Yeah I heard he would dribble while he was sleeping, but if you killed a man for that, there wouldn't be many people left in this world

If you start a political movement that actually succeeds in changing history, then the support for your cause was already there. Again, you put a name to it and gave it a face (your own), but you either started the movement in response to support or started it and received support that already existed, but was not organized.
Because of course, it is actually impossible to change anyone's opinion. :rolleyes:

To quote a certain eminent 20th century author and philosopher...

When [...] he doesn’t choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one’s mouth, expound no theories and die.

Because of course, it is actually impossible to change anyone's opinion.

Provide me with an example of a single man changing enough minds without preexisting thought helping him out to actually alter the course of history.

If you start a political movement that actually succeeds in changing history, then the support for your cause was already there. Again, you put a name to it and gave it a face (your own), but you either started the movement in response to support or started it and received support that already existed, but was not organized.

Right so without the leader it would come about anyway

Which isn't to say I might not agree to the fact that 70% of humanity are imbecilic degenerates, but they still call him that.

You need a google search to tell you this?

Provide me with an example of a single man changing enough minds without preexisting thought helping him out to actually alter the course of history.
You know as well as I do that it's impossible to answer a question phrased in this way. The fact of the matter is that whatever angry peasants there were in Russia, it was Lenin who created the USSR. There is nothing predestined about history being the way it is. Most people don't have formed opinions and plans of action in their heads at any given point, they're sheep. It takes an individual to direct them a certain way, and if you get a different person doing this job the outcome will be altered drastically.

The fact of the matter is that whatever angry peasants there were in Russia, it was Lenin who created the USSR.

The point isn't that Lenin created the USSR, its that if Lenin hadn't been around then Pieka would have created the YWLP. Of course history happened the way it did, that's not what's at issue. What I am saying is that if you remove every famous individual from history, there would be a set of other famous individuals taking their place, doing essentially the same thing at essentially the same time.

I'd probably fix history to have Mao zedong abducted by aliens and taken away forever. As an anthropology major, I have a personal vendetta against the SOB for wrecking over 5000 years of culture and turning China into the political mess that it is today.

What I am saying is that if you remove every famous individual from history, there would be a set of other famous individuals taking their place, doing essentially the same thing at essentially the same time.
Which is pure conjecture. It's like saying that if photons didn't exist, some other thing would make electromagnetic forces happen.

People have the capacity to interact and change their planned course of action as a result. Society and by extension history is the aggregate of all these interactions, and any given one can affect the outcome in some way. Since there are some interactions which turn out to have great ramifications, it stands to reason that if those didn't occur, their consequences wouldn't occur either. Instead you might have a different interaction causing some different outcome, and you really have no basis for claiming that this different outcome must somehow be "essentially the same thing".

Actually, there is one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist). But that one is completely insane when used in that sense and requires, as I suggested above, that anyone who believes in it conclude the pointlessness of their own existence and die.

I don't enough about history to name someone really worthy. :$

Genetic Eve... who did exist.

and response to:
Originally Posted by VirginiaCooper View Post
Provide me with an example of a single man changing enough minds without preexisting thought helping him out to actually alter the course of history.

If you believe it... there was that person... approx 2000 years ago, did some stuff in the middle east, i think there were some fish, a wedding or two and then chocolate eggs...

Which is pure conjecture.

Um. Duh!

'Nother one: Charles Darwin. Then we wouldn't have the theory of evolution.

'Nother one: Charles Darwin. Then we wouldn't have the theory of evolution.

Somebody would have come up with it sooner or later. That's like saying that assassinating Einstein or Oppenheimer would mean no atomic bombs. Sure, it might have been delayed, or more difficult, or fill-in-the-blank, but somebody would have figured it out.

Also, based on the responses in this thread, it's just as well that we don't have time travel.

'Nother one: Charles Darwin. Then we wouldn't have the theory of evolution.

Have you never heard of Alfred Russell Wallace? Do they not teach science anymore...

Lenin, as early as it would be possible to justify it as killing a combatant in a war.

Not only did he lead an incredibly murderous and destructive political movement, but his example served to inspire numerous other incredibly murderous and destructive political movements, with the further consequence of severely harming the credibility of any movement for radical left-wing change.

Mad Dog Tannen, probably.
Made of win.

Not only did he lead an incredibly murderous and destructive political movement, but his example served to inspire numerous other incredibly murderous and destructive political movements, with the further consequence of severely harming the credibility of any movement for radical left-wing change.

Don't feel too bad, they probably wouldn't have had any credibility anyways.

I would have thought bumping off Hitler would have been a n0-brainer.....but would it have stopped Nazism? Probably not. And WWII, horrible though it was, has so far produced two generations of relative peace.

I think that like Arnie in Terminator, I would travel back in time to rescue people:
Lincoln (gotta love him!), Joe Hill (tell him to get his butt out of Utah because he'll be framed on a murder rap), JFK (but would he listen? At least tell him to take a bullet proof car), John Lennon (John, stay in bed all day with Yoko on Dec 8th 1980 because there's a nutter outside stalking you), Archduke Ferdinand (I'd save about 10 million lives by telling him I know I great pasta restaurant in Trieste and it's my treat), President Rabin of Israel...at least wear a bullet proof vest to the peace meeting.

Oh and I'd tell Oscar Wilde that if he takes the Marquis of Queensbury to court, the Marquis won't be fighting by Quesnsbury Rules - he'll be getting the rent boys to stich old Oscar up.

John Conner


Someone had to say it, and I'm disapointed it had to be me on page 13!

I would have thought bumping off Hitler would have been a n0-brainer.....but would it have stopped Nazism?
Einstein wanted me to warn you that the Chronosphere could produce unknown side effects. Be careful when using it. Even we do not understand its full power...

Hmm I would have to say Attila the Hun or better yet his grandfather, give the western roman empire an chance or the people who assassinated the various reformist Czars of Russia who popped up time to time. It would be interesting to see if the Soviet Union could really formed if those Czars had suceeded in their reforms of the empire instead of being killed before they could complete them.

Either Mohammed, or the most influential Allied leader of WWI, whoever that was.

I would like to go back in time and make Hitler's mom have an abortion. That way, Adolph would have never been born.

What is Mico?

And I would thank you for not trying to insult me again.
What you could do is explain to me why you think it would not work,
regarding the outcome I wished for.

What outcome are you wishing for.

Myself.

Pure scientiic curiosity. Lets see what happes next.

Marx, Keynes, FDR, hmmmm... they've all made everyone's lives so miserable. Let's go with Keynes.

Marx, Keynes, FDR, hmmmm... they've all made everyone's lives so miserable.

How false.


Id probably get rid of Reagan.

What outcome are you wishing for.

To see a development of early socialism into a viable alternative,
as was made with capitalism instead.
I figure that if capitalism was postponed somewhat,
it could have been overrun by more solutions from the other side,
and thus create a more caring society.

Keep in mind that it is all baseless conjecture and wishful thinking of course.
But it is always fun to speculate as to what might have been in regards to what one wants for the future.

i would probably not personally, buuuuuuuttt, rush limbo comes to mind among the relatively recent, obviously in mean before he became the corporate voice of wingnutism.

going back a bit further, well i think the pup that would do the job would be that other time traveler, the one who gave the estruscans the stirrup and the flying wedge and thus significantly contributed to the odds of the eventual birth of the roman empire: probably the biggest single mistake, prior to the invention of the petroleum powered internal combustion engine, in the entire history of the human species on planet earth.

I'd assassinate JFK, due to that mafia scandal in 1964.

You know what? I'll actually go and do that now.

i would probably not personally, buuuuuuuttt, rush limbo comes to mind among the relatively recent, obviously in mean before he became the corporate voice of wingnutism.

So you want sausage, but you don't want to see sausage made, in other words.

going back a bit further, well i think the pup that would do the job would be that other time traveler, the one who gave the estruscans the stirrup and the flying wedge and thus significantly contributed to the odds of the eventual birth of the roman empire: probably the biggest single mistake, prior to the invention of the petroleum powered internal combustion engine, in the entire history of the human species on planet earth.

The Etruscans didn't use stirrups. The Etruscan civilization had been subsumed into the Roman civilization by roughly 100 B.C. The first dependable representation of a rider with paired stirrups was found in China in a Jin Dynasty tomb of about A.D. 322. Also, to describe the Roman Empire as "probably the biggest single mistake in the entire history of the human species on planet earth." is, at best, indefensible hyperbole.

probably the biggest single mistake, prior to the invention of the petroleum powered internal combustion engine, in the entire history of the human species on planet earth.

Statements like that are so blatantly ignorant I have to invent a new laugh just for them.

You want to live like a 14th century serf or a jungle savage, have at it. Me, I'll keep my car.

And if you do decide to forsake civilization, I'll be sure to make up for your reduced carbon emission :p

probably the biggest single mistake, prior to the invention of the petroleum powered internal combustion engine, in the entire history of the human species on planet earth.

[Regardless of troll/genuine ignorance]

Why stop at the internal combustion engine, the invention of human civilization was the bigger mistake.

Statements like that are so blatantly ignorant I have to invent a new laugh just for them.

You want to live like a 14th century serf or a jungle savage, have at it. Me, I'll keep my car.

And if you do decide to forsake civilization, I'll be sure to make up for your reduced carbon emission :p

...because the internal combustion engine was invented December 31, 1399?

To answer the OP's question, I probably wouldn't assassinate anyone. Don't know how it would turn out, and besides that, I'm not too fond of killing people.

I would not assassinate anyone, the result could be worse than what we have now.

If I absolutely had to, though, I'd probably assassinate one of the following:

Moses - nip that infernal Abrahamic behemoth in the bud.
Mary - no Christ, no Christians
Mohammed - no Mohammed, no Islam
Aneas - If the story is true, then I would have prevented the establishment of Rome.

why would You want no Jews, Christians or Muslims? The Abrihamic faiths have caused many wars but the world wouldn't be any better off without them.

And you would want there to have been no Roman Empire? why? it gave the world more than any other civilization?

The Abrihamic faiths have caused many wars but the world wouldn't be any better off without them.

Yes, it really, really would.

Yes, it really, really would.

Because what, Roman era polytheism is very much better?

Yes, it really, really would.

Okay, we should bring back the practices of Saxon/Norse/Arabic polytheism in place of the Abrahamic religions. Nope, Arabia was much better off without Islamic ethics and morals.

Because what, Roman era polytheism is very much better?

I dont seem to recall Roman inquisitions, crusades, suicide bombers, etc.

EDIT: The Romans have their share of atrocities, but their motives were purely secular 95% of the time.

Besides, Polytheism would have died on its own eventually.

I dont seem to recall Roman inquisitions, crusades, suicide bombers, etc.


Well I don't recall suicide bombers from that time period either, but that doesn't mean there can't be a level of faithful devotion mixed with sociopolitical conflict and a lack of more conventional warfare means associated with polytheism.


Besides, Polytheism would have died on its own eventually.

...and been replaced with a monotheistic religion not substantially different and we're back to where we started.

People will act like assholes in the name of religion, especially if there were other reasons for them acting like assholes. That's not going to change and broadly blaming "Abrahamic religion" for it is not substantially different from broadly blaming "Islam" for suicide bombings.

EDIT: The Romans have their share of atrocities, but their motives were purely secular 95% of the time.


I find this statistic 2% believable.

Well I don't recall suicide bombers from that time period either, but that doesn't mean there can't be a level of faithful devotion mixed with sociopolitical conflict and a lack of more conventional warfare means associated with polytheism.

Funny thing is, in the thousand year history of Polytheism, very few wars had anything to do with religion.

Besides, you just latched on to suicide bombings. What about polytheism crusades or inquisitions? Oh right, those didnt happen.

...and been replaced with a monotheistic religion not substantially different and we're back to where we started.

We dont know that. Besides, the problem isnt monotheism. The problem is Abrahamic religions. A subtle difference.

People will act like assholes in the name of religion, especially if there were other reasons for them acting like assholes. That's not going to change and broadly blaming "Abrahamic religion" for it is not substantially different from broadly blaming "Islam" for suicide bombings.

Except Islam is a contributing factor to suicide bombings. Just as Christianity was a contributing factor to the crusades. It doesnt deserve to shoulder all the blame, but to deny that it contributes, no matter how smally, is ignoring part of the situation.

I find this statistic 2% believable.

If you want to bring up some atrocities committed in the name of polytheism in history, Id be happy to debate them with you.

Of course I dont have the exact statistic, but my point remains. In all my (rather vast, if I do say so myself) historical knowledge, I am struggling to think of one atrocitity the Romans commited that was inspired by their religion.

There is a reason that most of the time when the Romans conquered new areas, they allowed them to keep their Gods and added said Gods to the Roman pantheon. The Greeks were the same way.

Funny thing is, in the thousand year history of Polytheism, very few wars had anything to do with religion.


Well now that depends on how you look at it. The era in question is rife with the idea of divine right to rule and living god-kings, and low/nonexistant literacy. So you don't see a lot of the mob-mentality and populism associated with religions that later came. But the religion is still there, and still plays its role.


If you want to bring up some atrocities committed in the name of polytheism in history, Id be happy to debate them with you.

Why? Nothing was done in the name of 'polytheism' or 'monotheism.' But...

Of course I dont have the exact statistic, but my point remains. In all my (rather vast, if I do say so myself) historical knowledge, I am struggling to think of one atrocitity the Romans commited that was inspired by their religion.

Caligula wasn't the only one who thought he was a god.

Caligula wasn't the only one who thought he was a god.

Indeed, but other than Commodus (who only thought he was a demi-god anyway) none of them went around butchering people in the name of their divine selves.

Indeed, but other than Commodus (who only thought he was a demi-god anyway) none of them went around butchering people in the name of their divine selves.


http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/elagabalus.html

http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/elagabalus.html

I always thought that he thought he was the Sun and collected cobwebs?

Indeed, but other than Commodus (who only thought he was a demi-god anyway) none of them went around butchering people in the name of their divine selves.

Of course they did. The divine cult was emphasized time and again until finally abolished by Constantine.

And the whole Roman society was built on war. Did they have a god of war? Yes. One might even describe the very act of making war as a holy sacrament. Sure, it wasn't a "Crusade," but there isn't a meaningful difference.

I always thought that he thought he was the Sun and collected cobwebs?


Bit more sinister than that, I'm afraid, though many of the more sordid stories are probably apocryphal.

But there's still surely enough random slaughter and sexual depravity based on his brief attempt to place his sun god at the height of the Roman pantheon to keep most people happy.

Well now that depends on how you look at it. The era in question is rife with the idea of divine right to rule and living god-kings, and low/nonexistant literacy. So you don't see a lot of the mob-mentality and populism associated with religions that later came. But the religion is still there, and still plays its role.


Indeed, but Pharoh didnt fight wars because God told him to. Pharoh fought wars because Pharoh wanted land.

Caligula wasn't the only one who thought he was a god.

Caligula's actions came from a deeply running insanity, not religion.

For what its worth, I agree with you on several counts. I only started in this debate because there isnt really any stimulating discussion on NSG atm.:D

Indeed, but Pharoh didnt fight wars because God told him to. Pharoh fought wars because Pharoh wanted land.

What about Akhenaten? He had a but of an Elagabalus complex, thought he was the Sun god and all that.


Caligula's actions came from a deeply running insanity, not religion.

What's the difference?

For what its worth, I agree with you on several counts. I only started in this debate because there isnt really any stimulating discussion on NSG atm.:D

That's because Hotwife's gone.

What about Akhenaten? He had a but of an Elagabalus complex, thought he was the Sun god and all that.

He didnt start any wars or wipe out groups of people over it.

And every Pharoh thought he was a God.

What's the difference?

:rolleyes: Even Im not being that vicious atm.

That's because Hotwife's gone.

Please, Hotwife didnt create intellectually stimulating discussion. He destroyed it.

Pharoh fought wars because Pharoh wanted land.

You're right, this is very different from "religious" wars waged by monotheists :eek2:

You're right, this is very different from "religious" wars waged by monotheists :eek2:

It is. The justification is different. Unless you deny that the people who wage war in Gods name really believe they are doing so?

Besides, the actions taken during the war are different as well. When people want your land, they are usually less likely to be inhumane as they are when they believe that their God hates you.

Indeed, but Pharoh didnt fight wars because God told him to. Pharoh fought wars because Pharoh wanted land.


No one fights wars because God told them to. (Except schizophrenics perhaps.) It's always about more land, more power, etc. Religion is just a convenient vehicle for justifying it to oneself and to the peons. Same as its always been.

Caligula's actions came from a deeply running insanity, not religion.

He was able to use the cult of the divine, and his ancestry from Julius and Augustus (both considered gods too) to do much more damage than in a truly secular-minded Rome.

For what its worth, I agree with you on several counts. I only started in this debate because there isnt really any stimulating discussion on NSG atm.:D

Boredom is the mother of necessity.

No one fights wars because God told them to. (Except schizophrenics perhaps.) It's always about more land, more power, etc. Religion is just a convenient vehicle for justifying it to oneself and to the peons. Same as its always been.

See, I believe that sometimes the people who wage war in God's name really believe they are doing so.

He was able to use the cult of the divine, and his ancestry from Julius and Augustus (both considered gods too) to do much more damage than in a truly secular-minded Rome.

This is true.

Boredom is the mother of necessity.

This is also true.

He didnt start any wars or wipe out groups of people over it.

Actually yes, yes he did.

And every Pharoh thought he was a God.

But he thought he was an uber-God, creator of the world etc.



:rolleyes: Even Im not being that vicious atm.

It was a joke.



Please, Hotwife didnt create intellectually stimulating discussion. He destroyed it.

Be that the case or not, you'll miss him.

Actually yes, yes he did.

Orly? Who? Where were the mass genocides? And his wars were fought to prevent further expanding Hittite power.

But he thought he was an uber-God, creator of the world etc.

No, he thought he was the direct way for people to earn said uber God's favor.

Be that the case or not, you'll miss him.

No, I wont. I know you had sort of a crush on Hotwife, but the rest of us didnt.

Orly? Who? Where were the mass genocides?

Where did I say mass genocides?



No, he thought he was the direct way for people to earn said uber God's favor.

No,he named the God after himself (or was it the other way round), then declared that he was that God.



No, I wont. I know you had sort of a crush on Hotwife, but the rest of us didnt.

Bugger off, and no matter what you say, there'll be a part of you that wants him back. You might not realise it for a while. It's like me when Andaras left. I couldn't stand him, and I was really happy, but then after a while there would be a hole in a thread just waiting to be filled by rants about bourgeois and the proletariat etc. I miss Andaras. :(

Where did I say mass genocides?

Ok, where are the atrocities commited over it?

No,he named the God after himself (or was it the other way round), then declared that he was that God.

Its actually far more complicated then that. I dont have the time or desire right now to go too far into detail for it, but its a combination of this and what I said earlier.

Bugger off, and no matter what you say, there'll be a part of you that wants him back.

No, there wont.

Ok, where are the atrocities commited over it?

He wiped out the whole priest society or whatever you call it, unless they moved away from Ra, Isis, Horus, Thoth etc.


Its actually far more complicated then that. I dont have the time or desire right now to go too far into detail for it, but its a combination of this and what I said earlier.

Or you just can't bluff your way any further.

No, there wont.

:rolleyes: Sure.

He wiped out the whole priest society or whatever you call it, unless they moved away from Ra, Isis, Horus, Thoth etc.

He ended their position of power and branded anyone who didnt play along heretics. But he didnt whipe them out.

Or you just can't bluff your way any further.

No, it actually is far more complicated then you are making it seem. If you want me to get into it, I will, but I charge for tutoring.

Unlike you, Ive shown to know what Im talking about.

:rolleyes: Sure.

Im sorry we all wont miss your internet crush as much as you will.

See, I believe that sometimes the people who wage war in God's name really believe they are doing so.


True enough, and they'd be like that with polytheism or monotheism.

No, it actually is far more complicated then you are making it seem. If you want me to get into it, I will, but I charge for tutoring.

Well, I don't particularly want lessons in idiocy, so I'll pass, thanks.

Unlike you, Ive shown to know what Im talking about.

Of course you have.

Im sorry we all wont miss your internet crush as much as you will.

Wow, you really are a hilarious and witty little man, aren't you?

Teddy Roosevelt, because he'd get better and I'd have not really made any difference to history, which is toujours a bad thing.

Well, I don't particularly want lessons in idiocy, so I'll pass, thanks.


You really should learn to have a discussion without flaming. It makes you appear more...mature.


Of course you have.

Yeah, I have.


Wow, you really are a hilarious and witty little man, aren't you?

I like to think so.

I would not assassinate anyone, the result could be worse than what we have now.

If I absolutely had to, though, I'd probably assassinate one of the following:

Moses - nip that infernal Abrahamic behemoth in the bud.
Mary - no Christ, no Christians
Mohammed - no Mohammed, no Islam
Aneas - If the story is true, then I would have prevented the establishment of Rome.

Within the milieu of the "Aeneid", I could think of thousands of better things to do than assassinate Aeneas; for one, having read the scroll of the fates, Jupiter renders the foundation of Rome inevitable. For another, I wouldn't fancy the divine retribution to he or she whom defies such divine edict.

Personally, I'd go either for Mohammed, on the basis that his absence would preclude the Arab conquests and thus maintain Helleno-Roman cultural hegemony on the Meditteranean littoral, and preserve Byzantium, or Constantine, to maintain a pagan empire.

You really should learn to have a discussion without flaming. It makes you appear more...mature.


So you going LOLOLOLOL intranetz crush LOLOLOL makes you appear what then?


Yeah, I have.


Rubbish.

Rubbish.

nu-uh!


I guess we're done here.

nu-uh!


I guess we're done here.

Oh, just ignore the rest of my post then, why don't you?

Personally, I'd go either for Mohammed, on the basis that his absence would preclude the Arab conquests

For all its faults, the Arab conquests did result in things like geometry, astronomy, and medicine making huge leaps.

and thus maintain Helleno-Roman cultural hegemony on the Meditteranean littoral, and preserve Byzantium

For a few more centuries at least. I doubt theyd have survived the Mongols.

One thing stuck out at me reading this thread:

Hotwife left? When, and why?

Oh, just ignore the rest of my post then, why don't you?

Yep. And you.

One thing stuck out at me reading this thread:

Hotwife left? When, and why?

Nation was deleted due to his constant flamebaiting, trolling, and failing to learn from his mistakes.

Nation was deleted due to his constant flamebaiting, trolling, and failing to learn from his mistakes.
If only they'd spread the love.

One thing stuck out at me reading this thread:

Hotwife left? When, and why?

He got deleted because the mods didn't like his opinions on Muslims.

Yep. And you.

So essentially because you lost your argument and can't back up any of the bullshit you're espousing, you're putting me on ignore. Stupid twat.

If only they'd spread the love.

Ooooh, biting.

Except, good luck finding evidence of me flame baiting or trolling in this thread.

Or are you just bringing up irrelevent things that happened months ago in an effort to irritate me?

He got deleted because the mods didn't like his opinions on Muslims.

Yes. Thats exactly why.:rolleyes:

So essentially because you lost your argument and can't back up any of the bullshit you're espousing, you're putting me on ignore. Stupid twat.

Lost what arguement?

Yes. Thats exactly why.:rolleyes:

So you're still ignoring 2 of my posts then? And yes, it is why. That as well as his over-the-topness, and occasionally downright rudeness.

Lost what arguement?

Jesus Christ, you're not the brightest star in the sky, are you?

So you're still ignoring 2 of my posts then? And yes, it is why. That as well as his over-the-topness, and occasionally downright rudeness.

I didnt put you on ignore, I was trying to end your threadjack.

I didnt put you on ignore, I was trying to end your threadjack.

Oh. The way you said it made it sound like you were putting me on ignore. In that case, apologies for calling you a twat.

I didnt put you on ignore, I was trying to end your threadjack.

MY threadjack? That's rich.

Incidentally, I would not kill anyone from the past, because I am not a killer, because I don't feel qualified to pass judgement, because the new timeline might be worse, and because I have no right to alter the timeline and errase all of those lives from existence, even in the by-no-means certain event that the new timeline would turn out better.

I might try to stop the guy who was going back to change the past, however.

So essentially because you lost your argument and can't back up any of the bullshit you're espousing, you're putting me on ignore. Stupid twat.

Regardless of whether or not you apologized, there is no justification for this. Yellow-carded.

He got deleted because the mods didn't like his opinions on Muslims.

He was deleted because he repeatedly trolled despite many warnings for him to stop. It wasn't his opinion but the way he expressed it.

Incidentally, I would not kill anyone from the past, because I am not a killer, because I don't feel qualified to pass judgement, because the new timeline might be worse, and because I have no right to alter the timeline and errase all of those lives from existence, even in the by-no-means certain event that the new timeline would turn out better.
I might try to stop the guy who was going back to change the past, however.

What if you had to kill him to stop him?

Gaius Julius Caesar. Give the Roman Republic half a chance to survive.

You mean let it be ruled by Pompey? Oh, kill Julius after Pompey's death?

How different things would be if Julius was assassinated. Wait....

What about Akhenaten? He had a but of an Elagabalus complex, thought he was the Sun god and all that.




What's the difference?



That's because Hotwife's gone.
when did hotwife go bye-bye?

My father!

*disappears*

*cough* Grandfather paradox *cough*

;)

I don't think I'd assassinate anyone, even Hitler. As tempting as it would be, and as nice as it would be save so many lives, I would also be preventing circumstances that happened after and/or in consequence of Hitler, which led to certain people "getting together" that otherwise wouldn't have, and certain people that are alive today wouldn't be born. Likewise, if someone went back in time and prevented slavery, they would prevent a lot of African-Americans and people of mixed heritage from being born.

This is not to say, of course, that the Holocaust or the trans-Atlantic slave trade were good or necessary things. Far from it. But altering history to save some lives and wiping many others from existence at the same time seems counter-productive and, frankly, immoral.

Anyone else with a time machine. I'm that paranoid about paradoxes.

Anyone else with a time machine. I'm that paranoid about paradoxes.

Aha, but what if the only other person to invent a time machine was your great grandfather?

...good point.

You can't escape the paradox.

It's everywhere. :gas: