Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 171

Thread: What was the most significant Event in the History of Man?

  1. #41
    That's a load of shit, cosmic... and you know it
    Last edited by tablariddim; 01-29-04 at 11:07 AM. Reason: comma

  2. #42
    Encephaloid Martini (Q)'s Avatar
    Posts
    19,127
    What was the most significant event in the history of man?

    The irradication of religion.

    Oops, sorry - this was a message from the not to distant future.

  3. #43
    The most significant event in the history of man was the very first pregnancy that produced a human--final.

  4. #44
    Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N wesmorris's Avatar
    Posts
    9,841
    Quote Originally Posted by tablariddim
    The most significant event in the history of man was the very first pregnancy that produced a human--final.
    And that wraps it up. You win.

  5. #45
    I think one of the most important events in human history are those that never happened. Contradiction? Semantically yes, but logically no. For instance if you happen to be Jewish, or (what Nazi's) considered untermensch the most significant event is that the Nazi's did not win WWII, or went into a stalemate. I think a Nazi victory would have been by enlarge the most significant event in history, the total and complete re-organization of the world according to new godless, ubermensch* rule.

    • Nazi's IMO were only ubermensch as a collective unit.

  6. #46
    Welcome To Kampuchea Hastein's Avatar
    Posts
    379
    I disagree. Ghengis and Napolean had much more significant empires. In the history of empires, Hitler takes a few seats back.

  7. #47
    I don't think Genghis or Napoleon had the ability to completely eradicate races, nor did they the ability to totally control all resources, and create nuclear weapons, and create genetically modified human beings! I think Hitler winning would have been the single worst event in human history. Unlike the former two, he had propaganda and he had the ability to control millions, almost instantaneously. You missed the point of my post:

    I think one of the most important events in human history are those that never happened

    Don't you agree that the most important even that never happened was Hitler's rise?

  8. #48
    They had the ability, but not the desire.

    Ghenghis was a very fair man. More barbaric, but evenhanded. He gave everyone the chance to surrender, and if they did not, they'd get exactly what they were promised..

  9. #49
    They had the ability, but not the desire.


    The holocaust remind you of anything? Nietzche abused philosophy was instramental in their reign, and no "inferior" ethics like ours was going to stop them. I am amazed that they didn't kill more.

  10. #50
    Let me put it this way:

    Putting Hitler, Genghis and Napoleon into the same basket is LAZY. The only thing they have in common is their uniqueness as leaders.

    Plus, your argument is based presumption. You're assuming their motives were identical and that they've would've used intrinsic means to achieve those same ends (rule the world.) Thats absolute bull. Its not so simple.

    Hitler wanted a master race, used force
    Napoleon was compensating, used force
    Ghenghis wanted wealth and respect, used force

    ^^I'm simplifying history, but not as much as you^^

    Great leader wanted power, used force <-----knowing this, technically, superfically...your argument is true. But as I said, limited and lazy


    Don't you agree that the most important even that never happened was Hitler's rise?
    What?!
    Hitler rose, and he fell just the same. The only thing that held him back from economically ruling the world was his blood lust.
    Last edited by Xerxes; 01-29-04 at 04:39 PM.

  11. #51
    Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N wesmorris's Avatar
    Posts
    9,841
    I think the most important thing than never happened is that the planet didn't spontaneously explode.

  12. #52
    Putting Hitler, Genghis and Napoleon into the same basket is LAZY

    No rather it is merely logical, they had the same motive. Domination, just different eras, and different philosophical reasons.

    Plus, your argument is based presumption. You're assuming their motives were identical and that they've would've used intrinsic means to achieve those same ends (rule the world.)

    I don't know what you are talking about, I never even indicated that Hitler and the other two were even connected, I was talking about Hitler's exceptionalism, could you please expand?

    Hitler rose, and he fell just the same.

    By appointment? ok...

    The only thing that held him back from economically ruling the world was his blood lust.

    You are not talking to me obviously, you are making these arguments on, well I don't know. I said nothing, nada, zip, zilch on the economics of Nazi Germany.

    Ok.....

  13. #53
    No rather it is merely logical, they had the same motive. Domination, just different eras, and different philosophical reasons.
    Exactly. I agreed that the logic is right. My point out that you're simplifying too much.


    I don't think Genghis or Napoleon had the ability to completely eradicate races, nor did they the ability to totally control all resources, and create nuclear weapons, and create genetically modified human beings! I think Hitler winning would have been the single worst event in human history. Unlike the former two, he had propaganda and he had the ability to control millions,

    I never even indicated that Hitler and the other two were even connected
    It could be interpreteded that way. You essentially said that the only difference was propoganda...but I disagree. Genghis and Napoleon used that too. How else could Ghenghis unite the loose tribes of mongolia than through the psychological propoganda that 'Mongolia should rule the world,' and that he was a god?

    I said nothing, nada, zip, zilch on the economics of Nazi Germany.
    Agreed. I simply pointed out that ruling the world is a matter of economics, and it was Hitlers blood lust that prevented him. But then, techincally, superficially...you did--
    nor did they the ability to totally control all resources,

  14. #54
    Exactly. I agreed that the logic is right. My point out that you're simplifying too much.


    Well not really, I mean the are logical comparisons. They both had HUGE empires, and they were all ruthless. Hitler and Genghis being the most ruthless bar none. But unlike Hitler, the Mongolian empire took at least a century to fully formulate into a entity, the Nazi's would have done it in less then 10 years, the Germans were known for one thing above all else, efficiency. The holocaust, the Blitzkrieg, and their re-armament showed this to be true. The Mongols were just ruthless, and their empire was based much more on luck or circumstance that of the Nazi ruler ship.

    It could be interpreteded that way.

    No, because in order for me to connect them I would list similarities.

    Genghis and Napoleon used that too.

    Could you cite examples of this?

    How else could Ghenghis unite the loose tribes of mongolia than through the psychological propoganda that 'Mongolia should rule the world,' and that he was a god?

    He ruled through the organizational means, and through ruthless warfare. He brought the tribes together yes, but propaganda could not exist for a people who at the time (to the best of knowledge) did not have writing or any settlements. No Genghis did it through ruthless means.

  15. #55
    Xerxes

    Please state a complete thought next time, if you do post again. I cannot stand seeing massive edits, if it does happen again. I will refuse to respond to the edit.

    Agreed. I simply pointed out that ruling the world is a matter of economics,

    Only when you have competition, if you have no competition economics ceases in function.

    But then, techincally, superficially...you did--

    You could say that, but I did not mean it in economic terms I meant it in controlling terms.

  16. #56
    But unlike Hitler, the Mongolian empire took at least a century to fully formulate into a entity, the Nazi's would have done it in less then 10 years,
    Its all relative. The collapse of the roman empire would take minutes in a modern world. Whats your point?

    The Mongols were just ruthless, and their empire was based much more on luck or circumstance that of the Nazi ruler ship.
    You have a very loose understanding of the Mongolians. I've read numerous books on the them, written two internal assesments, and if anything I can tell you they were just as efficient as the Nazi's (if not more!) Technology gave the Nazi's an edge in timewise, but I've never heard of a single Nazi that survived off of raw meat, tubers, and rode 80-110 miles a day on horseback. They're government was small and efficient, and in a ratio of populationower, the Nazi's don't even compare.

    No, because in order for me to connect them I would list similarities.
    Only simpleminded politicians ignore the *intrinsic* meanings of their statements.

    Its like a pedophile saying:

    I enjoy the company of children
    >in place of<
    I enjoy to fuck children

    and using that as his defence. Its twice as crooked and 10x more unprincipled.


    Could you cite examples of this?
    Okay. How about Napoleons little visit to the mideast? He saw the semites there in a similar way that Hitler saw the Jews, and wrote "Veni, Vedi Veci," The most ridiculously propogandic statement in existance..

    He brought the tribes together yes, but propaganda could not exist for a people who at the time (to the best of knowledge) did not have writing or any settlements.
    Why must propoganda exist in writing to have any value? Again..tunnelvision. Its not the medium that has value to propoganda - but the psychological effects

    I will refuse to respond to the edit.
    You've proved that you cannot resist the temptation. I think you're bluffing.

    Only when you have competition, if you have no competition economics ceases in function.
    well duh

    the most basic levels are international and intranational competition. And even then, I'm simplifying. As long as goods are being produced, competition always exists(either intra or inter). Therefore, as long as people exist, and demand products, so will competition. Regardless of politics

    You can't simplify history, and you can't do that for economics either.

  17. #57
    Anyways, I'm going out for an hour.

  18. #58
    Its all relative. The collapse of the roman empire would take minutes in a modern world. Whats your point?

    Isn't it obvious? The difference is this, the Nazi's would have done much more, more efficiently and thus proving my point that we are lucky that the Nazi's are not in power, or did not go into domination. Do you deny, that is the whole point of my stance.

    You have a very loose understanding of the Mongolians. I've read numerous books on the them, written two internal assesments,

    Well I thank you for the "appeal to authority" but unless you are a expert in this field, you wield little influence on me.

    and if anything I can tell you they were just as efficient as the Nazi's (if not more!)

    So taking over Poland in less then one month is worse then the Mongols taking over China over decades?

    Technology gave the Nazi's an edge in timewise, but I've never heard of a single Nazi that survived off of raw meat, tubers, and rode 80-110 miles a day on horseback.

    Because now you are illogically comparing the two, you in this instance simply cannot compare Nazi soldier with a Mongol soldier in specifics. The only way you can connect the two is through philosophical and motivational reasons. This does not prove that the Mongols were more efficient, what it did prove was the Mongols really liked their Kumis, and that they could survive much harsher conditions, I never contested otherwise.

    They're government was small and efficient, and in a ratio of populationower, the Nazi's don't even compare.

    Yes the Nazi's had a large bureaucracy, but I think the bureaucratic disaster of the Yuan dynasty showed how shallow this argument really is.

    Only simpleminded politicians ignore the *intrinsic* meanings of their statements.

    I love these infantile attempts to say I am a simpleton, it's really quite funny. The thing about this is my friend is that you are the one who has repeatedly misinterpreted my words.

    Okay. How about Napoleons little visit to the mideast? He saw the semites there in a similar way that Hitler saw the Jews, and wrote "Veni, Vedi Veci," The most ridiculously propogandic statement in existance..

    This is enough to convince me of your former assertion that Napoleon used it as well as the Nazi's? There simply cannot be a comparison btwn the indoctrination of the German people, and mass rallies in contrast to a man who was fighting campaigns half the time.


    Why must propoganda exist in writing to have any value? Again..tunnelvision.

    It's not tunnel vision, it's only following the semantical meaning of the term:

    prop•a•gan•da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
    n.

    -The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

    -Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
    There is the operative word; information could not be passed to others by illiterate means, and to nomadic people. It was ruthless campaigning to force the Mongols into a cohesive unit. The Mongols simply do not fit the definition of propaganda, unless of course you have your own (irrelevant) definition?

    Its not the medium that has value to propoganda - but the psychological effects

    Without a medium, there would be psychological effects to be had. The medium is the message.

    You've proved that you cannot resist the temptation. I think you're bluffing.

    That was my only warning to you, I had the courtesy to reply this time. I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

    well duh

    Ironic you were the one who was stating the opposite, but ok.

    As long as goods are being produced, competition always exists.

    Since when is a rule? Competition is not production, competition is two seperate entities fighting for market control. If we use your "economic" logic then the USSR was competitive...need I say more?

    Therefore, as long as people exist, and demand products, so will competition.

    USSR...

    You can't simplify history, and you can't do that for economics either

    Last edited by Undecided; 01-29-04 at 06:24 PM.

  19. #59
    The first use of a tool. Perhaps it was a stick used to pry up a rock for finding insects underneath.

  20. #60
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    232
    I'm going to have to say the domestication of animals was the most significant thing.

Similar Threads

  1. By Plato in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 07-29-12, 02:58 PM
    Replies: 82
  2. By =SputniK-CL= in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 08-29-05, 11:19 AM
    Replies: 119
  3. By kmguru in forum Intelligence & Machines
    Last Post: 06-27-04, 02:28 PM
    Replies: 156
  4. By static76 in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 08-06-02, 08:49 AM
    Replies: 28
  5. By Porfiry in forum Hubble
    Last Post: 01-11-01, 07:17 PM
    Replies: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •