Theoretically Killing Off One Person In History.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Oh, that's easy. Cromwell.

Alright, so basically, since this'll mean the Stuarts didn't have the whole civil war (alternatively, the civil still happens, but someone who isn't crazy and/or stuipd takes over, and actually stays in power, causing Britain to become a republic, like France - same end result), which prevents the Hanover house from taking the English crown, which in turn stops the first world war. No WW1 means that that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia never happen, no Soviet Russia means no communist China, so, no Kim Il Sung, no Pol-Pot, no Ho-Chi-Min, no Saddam and so on and so forth, and best of all, no one in Britain is technically breaking the law whenever they eat a mince pie!

So that's pretty much every problem with the world today gotten rid of, just by offing some warty git.

Sixcess:

omicron1:
Hmm. Maybe Muhammed? No offense intended, but on a pragmatic scale you could do a lot worse than stopping the crusades, Islamist jihad, modern-day terrorism, and mandated patriarchal culture of much of the world, with a single blow.

The crusades originated in the west, at the behest of the Pope, and Saladin, one of the great muslim leaders, is correctly regarded as a more tolerant and honorable man than many of his christian enemies.

The problem is not Muhammed, but certain leaders who came after him who twisted his teachings to suit their own ambitions and prejudices. If Muhammed came back today I rather think he'd be as disapointed and angry with islamic fundamentalism as Jesus would be with christian fundamentalism.

I would suggest this guy. He's the guy usually credited with moving Arab civilization away from science and such and into the religious fundamentalism we see today. When composing his philosophy, he immediately disregarded the Roman and Greek philosophers because they weren't believers in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god.

Sixcess:

omicron1:
Hmm. Maybe Muhammed? No offense intended, but on a pragmatic scale you could do a lot worse than stopping the crusades, Islamist jihad, modern-day terrorism, and mandated patriarchal culture of much of the world, with a single blow.

The crusades originated in the west, at the behest of the Pope, and Saladin, one of the great muslim leaders, is correctly regarded as a more tolerant and honorable man than many of his christian enemies.

The problem is not Muhammed, but certain leaders who came after him who twisted his teachings to suit their own ambitions and prejudices. If Muhammed came back today I rather think he'd be as disapointed and angry with islamic fundamentalism as Jesus would be with christian fundamentalism.

A. Islam's prior invasion of Spain etc. played a pretty major role, too. Let's not pretend there were innocent sides in that conflict.
B. Motives and origins do not change the fact that, sans Islam, the Crusades would have had little reason to exist. At worst there would be a drive to set up a Christian kingdom in Palestine.

Either Hitler or breivik.

I hate them both equally. Both have taken stuff from me and my family

Franklin Roosevelt.
He's the biggest reason for the economic mess America's in today.

SomeLameStuff:
inb4 Hitler

I'd kill off this person, because he's a prick.

Can I at least help you kill Hitler before you off me?

Mycroftian:

Actually, a lot of people lend credence to the theory that alcohol is one of the reasons civilization even exists. People discovered you could ferment different plants into booze, but the problem is you had to tend the crops year round. Leading to agriculture and eventually life as we know it today

I am not aware of such theory. It makes no sense however. Food back then was more important, and crops meant food first and foremost. infact alcohol was not made from crops for long time. it used to be fruit or mead for a long while even with existing agriculture.[/quote]

Mead is alcoholic, right?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked