posted
I'd go after whoever is the originator of that most acursed book (the Holy Bible), and show him what kind of damage his book will cause to the world. Before I killed him and destroyed all his records. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine then, I wouldn't kill him. But I would force him to watch reruns of televangelists for all eternity.
That way if he can learn how twisted his writings became.
And if Jesus was real then I'd appologize for the fact that many in the future believed that he was white. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't even say that you are the athiest. There is at least one 'racker that I can think of who is athier than thou.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who, and the better question... is it a girl?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Killing Mao depends on what time, Chinawould be in far worse straights now if you killed him before 1949, between 1954-1968 would in theory be the only period inwhich it would be a good idea, but would killing him before the Cultural Revolution accomplish much? Would it instead cause the One China Policy to have never have happened leaving millions of relatively well to do Chinese people in abject poverty? Be careful who you choose for it will have advserse consquences and I'm not saying this because of my own bias, I very well know about his mistaken policies during and after the Great Leap and how I wish some of them could have been prevented but China as it is today is thanks to him and to the other higher ups plus the wills of some 600,000,000 Chinese in the 1937-1978 period, after which economics took its turn.
IP: Logged |
Also: Why? Or are you joking (hyperliteral person speaking)?
I'm not a fan of genocide, of course I'm kidding.
In reality, I have a lot of problems with the British, but mostly I'm annoyed with the fact that they played Cartographer in the Middle East and now the US gets blamed for all the problems over there when we try to fix Britain's messes.
They form an oppressive Empire, but 50 years after it dies everyone thinks they are the cat's meow. America forms no empire and frees all of western Europe and 50 years later everyone hates us with a fury.
posted
I think this is, hands down and without a doubt, the *strangest* Hatrack thread I have ever stumbled into.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Less bloodthirsty question: whose life would you go back and save?
Considering just America (because otherwise I can't narrow it down enough to pick one) I'd start with Lincoln. If Reconstruction could have been done without the vindictiveness and more attention paid to actually protecting and helping the freed slaves, this could be a very different country.
I'm not sure he could have pulled it off, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not rescue anyone for the same reasons that i would not kill anyone. The effects would be so enormous and unseen as to change the world as we know it.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would save Mozart. There are other classical composers I liked better (Bach springs to mind) but Bach had a full life and wrote more music than I can comprehend... Mozart is the epitomy of lost potential. All that he did and he died younger than I am today...
Dag: I'm not sure I would save Lincoln. I think a lot of the reason that so much of his reconstruction policies made it into law was in remberance of him. If he were still alive, his enemies would have fought him tooth and nail to make sure the South suffered for being so uppity.
quote:Originally posted by Einstien: Me id kill hitler.
Your id kills Hitler? Freud would be impressed. Einstein, unfortunately, is not.
That's amazing. I love how the minds at Hatrack work
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The British.
AFTER America was already created.
But think about their accents and funny hats! You can't kill the British. Plus, if you killed them, then we wouldn't have comedic genuis such as Dame Edna and Eddie Izzard.
As for me, I think I would have to go with Hitller. Although it is possible that someone else could have risen through the ranks, I think that Hitler did it with a flair that we could have done without.
I wouldn't usually get into this, and I really don't want to cause a firestorm, but I'm sitting here and asking myself if I can let this go by and the answer keeps coming back as 'no'. I realise you were semi-joking but your answer about why seemed sincere, so I'm going from there.
So, and you realise you're taking me away from the West Wing to do this.
First of all, and most obviously, it's very foolish of you to blame a nation for the crimes of its leaders, especially those who were born nearly a hundred years ago. I don't think anything else needs to be said on that point, and you must understand that.
quote:mostly I'm annoyed with the fact that they played Cartographer in the Middle East
First of all, see above. Second of all, I don't think many people in the world, including the British, think that dividing any area arbitrarily- be it the Middle East, parts of Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica or North America, all of which have had claims made at some point over their landscape by an outside power- is a good thing. In fact, most countries try not to do it at all costs.
When the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed it was signed secretly and to keep western power in the Middle East. I believe Italy got a part too. It was a terrible idea, an agreement made in the middle of a war, for goodness' sake...
Not to excuse it by any means, but when you're loosing thousands of men every day in a trench war and you have no idea even if you're going to win and you have a mad general...
When you're on the way down, a lot of bad stuff happens. You get desperate. See the Suez Crisis for more "stupid last resorts".
And it undermined what T.E. Lawrence had been doing the whole time, too.
quote:and now the US gets blamed for all the problems over there when we try to fix Britain's messes.
I wouldn't say that the U.S. is being blamed for the messes in the Middle East. Yes, many people are saying that the U.S. shouldn't have gone in, but I don't think that the U.S. is being caused the root of the problems very much if at all.
Also, please do not forget that the British also have troops in Iraq.
quote:They form an oppressive Empire, but 50 years after it dies everyone thinks they are the cat's meow.
I don't think "everyone" thinks that the oppressive Empire is the cats meow. I think the people you mean like the percieved romantic and extensive history of the country, some of the culture and the accents.
quote:America forms no empire and frees all of western Europe
I'm know Western Europe is very grateful. But see below.
quote:and 50 years later everyone hates us with a fury.
"Everyone" hates a winner. After Pax Americana falls, "everyone" will love the U.S. and hate whoever's next .
The dominant power is always disliked simply because it's the dominant power and no one can really do anything about it but nuture a vague dislike which can be focused either way (like/dislike) by an event.
But America and Americans are not universally hated in Europe, not any more than the reverse is true. The two continents, the two countries, England and America, are so incredibly different, of course there are going to be tensions. Heck, there's tension between Canada and America!
Anyway. There you have it.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually it was his Sun who got his feet cut off me thinks.
IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of that story I read once where a guy was sent back in time to kill Hitler before he came to power, but since the assassin would have such information as to make him dangerous, then another assassin was sent to kill HIM, and another to kill HIM, and another, and another, and another...
For me, I'd bump off Mr. Floyd Abernathy, Jr. from Conifer Junction, Idaho who lived in 1891.
I don't know who he is, but he...must...be...STOPPED!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcare: Since Habermas is still alive, I'm thinking that particular day's discussion was about who they would abort in the womb. And I remembered the other person--Paul of Tarsus. Well to mention Foucault, is to drop the f-bomb, and Habermas and or public sphere is equally irritating.
Okay, but why Rousseau?
(Sorry, I know I got to the thread late.)
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. 
