GameBanshee Forums

Name a few influential historical figures that you most admire and explain why: Churchill, Copernicus, Socrates, etc.. I know there are alot to choose from, but just some that come to mind.

I have to give some thought to mine and I'll add them later; at the moment I'm tired, however, and worry that if I go to bed without making this thread I'll forget. Please forgive me.

Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson. Brilliant sea warrior. Drank rum. Died defending his country. Spawned the delicious beverage that is Nelson's Blood.

That's a legacy worth dying for.

Richard Feynman spent his time in strip clubs, dropped acid, played the banjo and still managed to be the world's most brilliant physicist since Einstein.

Genghis Khan. The man was a brilliant leader, strategist and general. Rather than playing on personal favors owed, or how much he liked someone, or prejudices getting in his way...he used the best he could find to do the most important jobs under him. Including enemies who proved themselves more worthy do the job than a current ally. He also founded the largest contigeous empire in the world.

It'd have to be Julius Caesar, one of the greatest military strategists and tacticians of the western world.

Alexander the Great, the greatest General the world has ever known as well a brilliant thinker, warrior, and strategist. Reknown for his drinking and his countries drinking as well.

George Washington, an incredible General, leader, and the least corruptable President we have ever had (U.S.). Used much cocaine.

Steve Jobs, best thing that ever happened for computers. He freed them. Wonderful speaker. He also dropped acid.

Jim Morrison, wonderful singer, writer and person. Known for his smoking pot, lsd, and cocaine OD.

Gene Roddenberry, creator of star trek. Way ahead of his time. A great man.

I dunno if this would be considered a "historical figure". She isn't dead yet, or in any history books. HOWEVER! I have to put it out that I thoroughly respect Joanna Angel. She gave the adult entertainment industry the finger and went her own way when she was turned down for being a tattooed freak. Now she's a rich freak that has spearheaded a new branch of the industry. :laugh:

I'm horrible on history, so it's difficult to choose, but I think Louis Pasteur wouldn't be a bad option.

Curious that although people generally dislike war 4 out of 5 first choices have been imperialistic warriors.

Dottie wrote:Curious that although people generally dislike war 4 out of 5 first choices have been imperialistic warriors.

I never said I dislike war. Humans killing other humans gives me hope for this world.

He isn't historical yet, but he will be as possibly the worst actor to ever walk the face of the planet. This man brought the balance, we had several good actors, and we had very few bad actors. We needed more bad actors, or one really horrible one to compensate, which we were given. And of course I'm talking about Bob Sagat.

Magrus wrote:I never said I dislike war. Humans killing other humans gives me hope for this world.

That was a highly unsympathetic opinion. What does this killing achieve, in your opinion? Personally I can't figure out anything more detestable than killing non agressive people for your/your nations gain.

Ah...

Cognito Ergo Sum.

René Descartes.

I agree to a great many of his philosophical viewpoints, and bringing them into discussion can be anything from hilarious to infuriating to the other(s)...

It's funny how some of you admire people who brought war and suffering to mankind. Personally, I admire people who decreased suffering and worked against war.

Just to mention a few:

[url="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/leeuwenhoek.html"]Anton Leeuwenhoek[/url] for discovering bacteria and for Step 1 in microbiology

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner"]Edward Jenner[/url] for discovering vaccination

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur"]Louis Pasteur[/url] for the Germ Theory and Step 2 in microbiology

Charles Darwin for daring to remove humanity's privileged place in the universe. (I don't provide a link because if you don't know who this is you deserve to die a painful death )

[url="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/fleming-bio.html"]sir Alexander Fleming[/url] for the penicillin

[url="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-lecture.html"]Bertrand Russell (please do read this lecture)[/url] for propagating truly humanitarian values

[url="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/press.html"]sir Francis Crick (science doesn't get more beautiful than this )[/url] - together with Wilkins & Watson - for the structure of the double helix

[url="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1995/press.html"]Joseph Rotblat[/url] for taking the responsibility every scientist needs to take (also read this [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,,1393868,00.html"]short interview[/url])

[url="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1998/press.html"]Amartya Sen[/url] for making us understand poverty and providing the methods for how to prevent it

Dottie wrote:What does this killing achieve, in your opinion?

Progress.

Denethorn wrote:Progress.

Exhausting.

What type of progress? Humanitarian? Ecological? Cultural? Technological?

If you meant technological progress then it's true that the prospect of war has been a great motivator to devolop new weaponry, and have lead to a few spin off products. Do you think this is an important enough factor to make up for the fact that war leads to misery and death for millions of people?

Humans will over populate the earth and the fighting will be more brutal then you can imagine, or I.

JonIrenicus wrote:Humans will over populate the earth and the fighting will be more brutal then you can imagine, or I.

Wouldn't birth control be a better solution than simply killing off people in wars?

C Elegans wrote:Wouldn't birth control be a better solution than simply killing off people in wars?

Oh I whole heartly agree. It would be. But who is going to enforce it?

JonIrenicus wrote:Oh I whole heartly agree. It would be. But who is going to enforce it?

This is off topic so I'll be very brief but the tradition of getting many children is related to the lack of social security in old age, so apart from doing like China did, structural changes in society automatically changes nativity rates.

Dottie wrote: If you meant technological progress then it's true that the prospect of war has been a great motivator to devolop new weaponry, and have lead to a few spin off products.

Far more than that. The amount of progress as a whole humanity has made thanks to war is insurmountable. Nothing inspires greater need, investment and urgengy in a civilization than the threat of destruction. Is that not human nature?

Not that its the best policy I agree. And does the end justify the means? Most likely not. Unfortunately apply Churchill's quote to the subject : It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

War is the worst form of progress - unfortunately, nothing has proved to be better