If you could have a day with anyone from the past.....

JFK, I have somethings to say to him face-to-face.
Like..."What were you thinking!!!"
 
Martin Luther King

He lived his life in constant fear just to make this country more peaceful. There will never ever be another MLK.

And Babe Ruth, want to ask him how he hit all those homeruns on beer and hot-dogs. Unbelievable!
 
Hitler at about the age of 3 days old, so I could "accidentally" drop him from his cradle and break his sorry head.
 
Not revenge. Revenge would have been shooting him at the end of the war. Prevention is what I would have been after.

It's an interesting question. No one in his/her right mind would actually dash a baby's brains out, for no obvious reason. But if you had perfect vision into the future, would you get rid of a future world criminal? Never mind about "someone worse," let someone else take care of that.

If you had omniscience and knew what was coming, would you have shot John Wilkes Booth on April 13, 1865? Stopped Hirohito and his generals from bombing Pearl Harbor? Stopped Truman from dropping the A-bomb on Japan? Prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from going to Dallas in November of 1963?

Less violently, let's say you could force Hitler to have been raised in a loving family rather than as he was. You could have temporarily kidnapped John Wilkes Booth. Detained Oswald.

Would you have done it, or would you let history take place as it has?

There's a fascinating book called "Then Everything Changed," by Jeff Greenfield. It's an alternate look at history, at what COULD have happened, had not the assassinations and other events taken place. Quite an amazing intellectual exercise.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Then-Everything-Changed-Alternate-Histories/dp/0399157069[/ame]
 
Beach girl said:
Not revenge. Revenge would have been shooting him at the end of the war. Prevention is what I would have been after.

It's an interesting question. No one in his/her right mind would actually dash a baby's brains out, for no obvious reason. But if you had perfect vision into the future, would you get rid of a future world criminal? Never mind about "someone worse," let someone else take care of that.

If you had omniscience and knew what was coming, would you have shot John Wilkes Booth on April 13, 1865? Stopped Hirohito and his generals from bombing Pearl Harbor? Stopped Truman from dropping the A-bomb on Japan? Prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from going to Dallas in November of 1963?

Less violently, let's say you could force Hitler to have been raised in a loving family rather than as he was. You could have temporarily kidnapped John Wilkes Booth. Detained Oswald.

Would you have done it, or would you let history take place as it has?

There's a fascinating book called "Then Everything Changed," by Jeff Greenfield. It's an alternate look at history, at what COULD have happened, had not the assassinations and other events taken place. Quite an amazing intellectual exercise.

Amazon.com: Then Everything Changed: Stunning Alternate Histories of American Politics: JFK, RFK, Carter, Ford, Reagan (9780399157066): Jeff Greenfield: Books
Click to expand...


That is the thing, we could never predict what could happen if we change one thing of history. Life could have drastically gone for worse or better. Who knows how a person life could be changed by one little thing we didn't even notice.

Example, someone made you mad when you were a teenager, if you had a chance to go back and talk to that person. I'll bet ya that person had no idea he made you mad and why.
 
Beach girl said:
Not revenge. Revenge would have been shooting him at the end of the war. Prevention is what I would have been after.

It's an interesting question. No one in his/her right mind would actually dash a baby's brains out, for no obvious reason. But if you had perfect vision into the future, would you get rid of a future world criminal? Never mind about "someone worse," let someone else take care of that.

If you had omniscience and knew what was coming, would you have shot John Wilkes Booth on April 13, 1865? Stopped Hirohito and his generals from bombing Pearl Harbor? Stopped Truman from dropping the A-bomb on Japan? Prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from going to Dallas in November of 1963?

Less violently, let's say you could force Hitler to have been raised in a loving family rather than as he was. You could have temporarily kidnapped John Wilkes Booth. Detained Oswald.

Would you have done it, or would you let history take place as it has?

There's a fascinating book called "Then Everything Changed," by Jeff Greenfield. It's an alternate look at history, at what COULD have happened, had not the assassinations and other events taken place. Quite an amazing intellectual exercise.

Amazon.com: Then Everything Changed: Stunning Alternate Histories of American Politics: JFK, RFK, Carter, Ford, Reagan (9780399157066): Jeff Greenfield: Books
Click to expand...

Everything happens for a reason. If we seek to change any one event, it is not known whether the result of that would create a positive outcome or a negative outcome. Speculating about what "could have happened" has to include all possible variances, not just the ones that make us feel good.
 
So you're basically a fatalist? Whatever happens, happens?

What about in the immediate present? Do you try to control what happens to you, what effect you have on other people, how you react to events both personal and global, to the best of your ability, or do you assume that "things are happening for a reason" and don't try to exert any particular control?
 
Beach girl said:
So you're basically a fatalist? Whatever happens, happens?

What about in the immediate present? Do you try to control what happens to you, what effect you have on other people, how you react to events both personal and global, to the best of your ability, or do you assume that "things are happening for a reason" and don't try to exert any particular control?
Click to expand...

No, not a fatalist at all. A believer in that everything happens for a reason. Quite a different concept from "whatever happens, happens."

The only thing any of us can control is ourselves. We cannot control others. The fact that so many attempt to control others is the source of more problems than I care to mention. I think perhaps you are failing to understand the distinction between "control" and "influence". They are vastly different.
 
jillio said:
No, not a fatalist at all. A believer in that everything happens for a reason. Quite a different concept from "whatever happens, happens."

The only thing any of us can control is ourselves. We cannot control others. The fact that so many attempt to control others is the source of more problems than I care to mention. I think perhaps you are failing to understand the distinction between "control" and "influence". They are vastly different.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately (or perhaps sometimes fortunately), that simply isn't true. Politicians, generals, economists, bankers, educators, assassins, engineers, all sorts of people, good, bad and indifferent, can and do control others every single day. If you think you are not being "controlled" simply by virtue of where you are living, how you are investing, how much faith you have in your bank vs. Bank X across the street, etc., etc., you are not appreciating a whole lot of things, for better and for worse, that are going on in your life.

Unless you've got all your money under a mattress, for instance, your investments are being controlled by people you've never met, whose acumen you are trusting, and whose decisions are controlling how nice your retirement years are going to be. You can do a lot to influence the outcome of your financial decisions, but you are not in complete control of what happens to your money. As anyone who has ridden the stock market roller coaster over the last few years can attest.
 
deafbajagal said:
Mr. Alexander Graham Bell. I have some things to say to him, face to face.
Click to expand...

but then he'd be even more motivated after seeing what mainstream did to you, as you would be seen as a Heariingised Deaf!. i think it might backfire!
just my opinion, i mean like we know what he proposed but how he perceived such a result from the future isnt going to change much..hmm...just food for thoughts eh?
 
if a list is allowed,
Leonard Da Vinci for drawing and imagination
Van Rji Rembrant for painting (better the Da vinci)
Francis Bacon for secular science - id challenge him on the downfalls of it...
Pythagoroas - i have always wondered how the hell did he worked it all out...
Esp the trigonometry, i sometimes thinks he sold his soul for this fame and fortune...
there'd be hundreds but these are the top five...
Oh not to mention Neil Armstrong (the young one that is if he is still alive...)
 
Thomas Jefferson
Carl Sagan
Einstein
Immanuel Kant
Leonardo
Eratosthenes
 
Grummer said:
if a list is allowed,
Leonard Da Vinci for drawing and imagination
Van Rji Rembrant for painting (better the Da vinci)
Francis Bacon for secular science - id challenge him on the downfalls of it...
Pythagoroas - i have always wondered how the hell did he worked it all out...
Esp the trigonometry, i sometimes thinks he sold his soul for this fame and fortune...
there'd be hundreds but these are the top five...
Oh not to mention Neil Armstrong (the young one that is if he is still alive...)
Click to expand...

I would like a day with Chief Sitting Bull so I can hear his side of what really happen!
Hitler so I can personally kill him myself! I know it made me no better than him!
Van Gogh as I love his art work!
And Thomas Edison as my friend grandfather was one of Thomas Edison pioneers! My friend has one of Edison first light bulb! COOL!
 
I'd like to communicate with the first fish to crawl upon land. I would tell it the history of the world. It would turn around and go back into the water.
 
Beach girl said:
Unfortunately (or perhaps sometimes fortunately), that simply isn't true. Politicians, generals, economists, bankers, educators, assassins, engineers, all sorts of people, good, bad and indifferent, can and do control others every single day. If you think you are not being "controlled" simply by virtue of where you are living, how you are investing, how much faith you have in your bank vs. Bank X across the street, etc., etc., you are not appreciating a whole lot of things, for better and for worse, that are going on in your life.

Unless you've got all your money under a mattress, for instance, your investments are being controlled by people you've never met, whose acumen you are trusting, and whose decisions are controlling how nice your retirement years are going to be. You can do a lot to influence the outcome of your financial decisions, but you are not in complete control of what happens to your money. As anyone who has ridden the stock market roller coaster over the last few years can attest.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, it is true.:cool2: But you go ahead and make yourself miserable by attempting to control things that you have no control over snd relinquishing your personal control to others.
 
Back
Top