If you could kill one man... In history..

Does it have to be a man btw ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An animal?

>Does it have to be a man btw ?

What happened if you killed the first dinosaur 350000000 yers ago?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

>There are many of them
I think the most important person to vanish from history were AaZ from Alexandria in Egypt. I suppose the world would be more safe if he had been sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of Egypt and executed, in the 1980ies for participation in the assassination of president Anwar al Sadat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unpredictable really

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you could change history, you would unwittingly be changing the present as well and things could turn out to be very weird. One example of a paradox is that if you could go to the past and kill a distant ancestor, then you would never be born and hence you could never go back to kill anyone, therefore you could not kill your ancestor therefore you were born...weird huh?

 

The Grandfather paradox, hence the parallel universes theory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the person who founded the first religion

 

Columbus was a great man. Without him, America wouldn't have been discovered when it was. But it would have been, eventually. And the Indians would have suffered the same fate.

 

Please explain this one.

 

technically if people were living there had it not already been discovered and any who the vikings found it first

 

That joke stopped being funny about 15 years ago.

Columbus discovered America because it was his discovery that was meaningful, that lead to the migration of Europeans into the Americas.

If the American Indians had developed technology first and they had come to Europe, it would have been them who discovered us. And, most likely, we'd be the ones one reservations.

 

there must be balance within this world...for all the good there must be evil. Taking out evil creates evil later.

 

I don't agree here. Good could exist without evil. Good is self sustaining; evil is destructive to everything, including itself.

 

This is wisdom.

 

No it's not.

 

I agree with this. We don't want to be a little bit well, we don't want to drink tainted water. We don't drink pure water and say 'dang, there's not enough vile crappy parasites in here to make me sick and balanced'. I don't need a dose of rat poisoning every day to make me feel balanced.

 

That was a metaphor. Evil is the parasite. Good could exist without evil, but evil could not exist without good.

Remember From Dusk till Dawn? Harvey Keitel's character is a priest who has lost his faith. Once they're attacked by multiple vampires, George Clooney says

And if there is a hell, and those sons of bitches are from it, then there has got to be a heaven... Jacob, there's gotta be. So what are you, Jacob? A faithless preacher? Or a mean motherfuckin' servant of God?​

Evil is the parasite. The host can exist without the parasite, in fact, it's better off. But the parasite can not exist without the host.

 

without evil good would have no meaning they are 2sides of a coin you cannot have without the other

 

That is not an absolute, that is the dynamic and duality of this universe.

You can't say it has to be that way absolutely, we don't know that. I doubt it does actually. There may exist a place where it is totally different.

Your example is as unrealistic as saying healthy sustenance has no meaning unless poison exists. And even if it does exists, it is meant to be avoided for good reason. Ridiculous.

 

in this place and time i belive that is the case there may be places that it doesn't yet we have found none so this theory of duality still holds

 

What about a coin with heads on both sides? Two sides, but both the same.

Look, practically speaking, evil does seem to go hand in hand with good. My point is that it need not be so.