DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
Caesar, to possibly change the whole of the last 2000 and otentially make things advance quicker technologically (do away with the Dark Ages).
Elaborate please. Ceaser was killed by his own people. You would save him by mowing down everyone in the senate with a minigun, or what? I don't know how else saving him would keep him in power.
His martyrdom did more for Civil Rights than if he were to still be alive.
If were to still be alive, his infidelity would have been found out eventually and it would mar the whole Civil Rights movement.
Gandhi already accomplished what he needed to do in life.
So did Jesus.
I don't think JFK accomplished everything he could have.
Anything in early history could have a landslide effect on how things are today.
**EDIT**
Actually Lincoln would be a good choice as well. His progresssive thinking on reformation of the South would have saved a lot of heartache and economic trouble, which has lasted even today.
Yes, because everyone ever named Caesar was killed by the senate.
Julius Caesar was murdered by the senate, but not any other Caesar, duderz!
Originally posted by: Nik
Yes, because everyone ever named Caesar was killed by the senate.
Julius Caesar was murdered by the senate, but not any other Caesar, duderz!
Are you just picking a fight or what? When people say "Caesar" they mean Julius Caesar usually. Just like when they say Gandhi they mean Mohandas Gandhi and not some other dude named Gandhi.
Conversly, I could see eliminating certain individuals rather than saving some. Though, the ramifications there would be daunting at best.
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Nik
Yes, because everyone ever named Caesar was killed by the senate.
Julius Caesar was murdered by the senate, but not any other Caesar, duderz!
Are you just picking a fight or what? When people say "Caesar" they mean Julius Caesar usually. Just like when they say Gandhi they mean Mohandas Gandhi and not some other dude named Gandhi.
Considering how many Gandhi's versus how many Caesars there were in the international eye, I think my point is easily made.
Originally posted by: DaShen
His martyrdom did more for Civil Rights than if he were to still be alive.
If were to still be alive, his infidelity would have been found out eventually and it would mar the whole Civil Rights movement.
Gandhi already accomplished what he needed to do in life.
So did Jesus.
I don't think JFK accomplished everything he could have.
Anything in early history could have a landslide effect on how things are today.
**EDIT**
Actually Lincoln would be a good choice as well. His progresssive thinking on reformation of the South would have saved a lot of heartache and economic trouble, which has lasted even today.
MLK did plenty while alive. His martyrdom was not his primary contribution to human history. Not sure where you are getting that idea. And he would no doubt have continued to improve humankind had he lived. JFK also had fidelity issues.
im willing to bet that if hitler was killed it would have a major change on japan (and obviously jewish people)
but as for japan, with out the influence of hitler would they have ever started a war with us, and would they be as tech. advanced as they are today?
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Nik
Yes, because everyone ever named Caesar was killed by the senate.
Julius Caesar was murdered by the senate, but not any other Caesar, duderz!
Are you just picking a fight or what? When people say "Caesar" they mean Julius Caesar usually. Just like when they say Gandhi they mean Mohandas Gandhi and not some other dude named Gandhi.
Considering how many Gandhi's versus how many Caesars there were in the international eye, I think my point is easily made.
What point? You had a point? Are you sure? Please explain it, if you can (probably not). The person I replied to said Ceasar. Did you infer that he meant all Ceasars in history? Did you simply throw your arms up and say, "I don't know which Caesar he means!! I'm so confused!", or what? How is your post in any way related to making a point other than that you are looking to debate someone on a meaningless interruption?
MLK had fidelity issues as well. He was a womanizer.
Yes, Torpid, I actually did throw my arms up and go "I don't know which Caesar he means!!" I was so confused.
:roll:
Nice reading comprehension there. Not only did you misread what I wrote, you didn't even bother to read the post I was quoting.
And you chose to reply to my post because...? You would rather pick a fight with someone who assumed that "Caesar" meant "Julius Caesar" as most people would do rather than just question the person who wrote Caesar in the first place? Man, you sure have neffing down to an art. Pick a random post, don't read the quotations, reply with some nonsense, then defend the nonsense...
It would be doubtful. Hitler caused a sort of window to open up for the Japanese that allowed for them to attack us without condemnation from the rest of western civilization.
Another fun one to contemplate is taking Stalin out of the picture.
Settle down, tough guy. Nobody's starting a fight. If you don't see my point, I'm not going to bother lowering myself to explain it to you. I know you get it, you're just playing stupid to make a point... just like I was.
Your point is you don't know which caesar, but I'm not the one who suggested caesar, so you should be asking the guy who posted it originally. I merely assumed he meant Julius Caesar and asked how that would have gone.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter