Page 3 of 5

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:47 am
by Jordan
Correct. My change would be preventing the continuation of the human race. I'd eliminate all humans to prevent the misery of the future. Clearly humans are a cruel and terrible race and must be eliminated as a whole because of their incompetence as creatures living on Planet Earth.

Bwahahaha. Oh, SNAP!


What a good argument Snake. *applauds*

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 10:31 am
by Sun Gongli
With all due respect, I have to say that that's as extreme a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water as there ever was. While it's true that there will always be evil, there will also always be good. Exterminating a race just because there are those among it without any redeemable qualities is a poor solution to any problem. There are also people on the planet who are so good and just that they stand against everything you condemn an entire race for.

I would prevent the communist rise to power in China, thus possibly preventing the Korean and Vietnam wars and also preventing a mass exodus into Taiwan and the horrid human rights situation in China right now.

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:06 pm
by Catalyst
Sun Gongli wrote:With all due respect, I have to say that that's as extreme a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water as there ever was. While it's true that there will always be evil, there will also always be good. Exterminating a race just because there are those among it without any redeemable qualities is a poor solution to any problem. There are also people on the planet who are so good and just that they stand against everything you condemn an entire race for.


So, what if you were to go back and eliminate everything "evil"? Kill all the villainous people, burn all books with "evil" parts to it, destroy everything depicting an "evil" act. With a complete absence of anything evil, would the world become good, as no one left would have any truly "evil" thoughts? Is that possible?

Probably not, I know, but just a thought.

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:26 pm
by Wo Long
Catalyst wrote:
Sun Gongli wrote:With all due respect, I have to say that that's as extreme a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water as there ever was. While it's true that there will always be evil, there will also always be good. Exterminating a race just because there are those among it without any redeemable qualities is a poor solution to any problem. There are also people on the planet who are so good and just that they stand against everything you condemn an entire race for.


So, what if you were to go back and eliminate everything "evil"? Kill all the villainous people, burn all books with "evil" parts to it, destroy everything depicting an "evil" act. With a complete absence of anything evil, would the world become good, as no one left would have any truly "evil" thoughts? Is that possible?

Probably not, I know, but just a thought.


No, there would still be someone with"evil" intentions. You don't know what could trigger "evil" thoughts so you'd have to destroy everything and everyone to destroy evil, but then you'd be doing the same thing as SlickSlicer.

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 6:02 pm
by football11f
Did you learn nothing from Command & Conquer: Red Alert !?!!


Ah, but notice how I included Lenin. See, without Lenin there would be no Soviet Union to invade Europe with mammoth tanks and tesla coils :lol: .

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 6:41 pm
by Jordan
No, there would still be someone with"evil" intentions. You don't know what could trigger "evil" thoughts so you'd have to destroy everything and everyone to destroy evil, but then you'd be doing the same thing as SlickSlicer.


Well it wouldn't work simply because the good seed of today can plant the evil tree of tomorrow. In other words, just eliminating all evil people wouldn't eliminate 'evil genes.' The good people that remained after such a mass extermination could still produce new humans that were terrible.

Ah, but notice how I included Lenin. See, without Lenin there would be no Soviet Union to invade Europe with mammoth tanks and tesla coils


Instead there would be a Russian Provisional Government with those things. :/

Lenin...meh I think he had a mixed record. On one hand Kerensky wasn't a bad guy and was really a hero in many ways but on the other he did screw up in that he never withdrew the Russians from World War I, which was both unpopular and even somewhat futile. Even though if the Russians stayed in, World War 1 might have ended sooner (because the US would have eventually come in and tipped the scales) it could have been at the cost of many more lives. But Lenin also plunged the Russians into a devastating civil war and liquidated peasants who disagreed with his politics. On the other hand his economic policy did help Russia recover from the civil war he had started. I don't think Lenin was horribly evil, especially next to Stalin, but he did good and bad things during his career.

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 8:17 pm
by SunXia
Yeah. The cost of the Civil War was quite a price and if they'd stayed in WWI, it might have been prevented, as the Civil War didn't end until the 1920's when the Great War was over. Kerensky was a cool dude, too bad he hadn't any good leaders beside him to help as one person doesn't make a government and he was the only real capable leader of the Provisional Government and so had to make too many decisions on his own!!

Unread postPosted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:53 am
by Mistelten
I think the most effective change in the Russian Revolution would not require killing anyone at all, but preventing the killing of Prime Minister Stolypin. The reason I pick him is because he had already made great progress for the people and the government, effectively marginalizing the revolution in the process. His survival would ensure that progress would continue to be made without the cost of bloodshed, and it wouldn't be limited to the shaky grounds and conflicting ideologies of the provisional government.
Stolypin himself made these changes despite the Czarist Government. The Czar was apathetic and a fool, but in that way he was a tyrant through inaction. So in a way, Trotsky was right in condemning him for his apathy, although he certainly exaggerated in calling him the 'worst tyrant who ever lived.' The Czar's willingness to accept his death (and probable relief) shows his detachment from the whole situation. Perhaps if Stolypin had set a precedent that didn't end in dead PMs, Russia may have become more like Britain is today.

Unread postPosted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:07 am
by Jordan
The tsars suck. I hate Nicholas and the rest of his Romanov family. I like Rasputin though (my friend Grigori). :)

With all due respect, I have to say that that's as extreme a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water as there ever was. While it's true that there will always be evil, there will also always be good. Exterminating a race just because there are those among it without any redeemable qualities is a poor solution to any problem. There are also people on the planet who are so good and just that they stand against everything you condemn an entire race for.


And the amount of evil will always outweigh the good. Better to not live at all then to live in abject misery and spread your misery to all corners of the planet Earth. If the future has any resemblance to the past then it's better to just destroy it now.

Unread postPosted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:46 am
by Kong Wen
Such fashionable misanthropy. It never really ends up being practical, though, because, despite how evil and/or miserable human existance may be to some... I want to live and enjoy the world. :)