Who is your favorite historical figure? Why is that person your favorite historical figure? Do you see this person as a role model?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/18/article-1162771-03F41D2B000005DC-520_964x403.jpg)
Eleanor of Aquitaine
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QjuzUIuGxF4/TTwctH5tmtI/AAAAAAAAAyg/4nrR0QM3G-o/s1600/Eleanor+of+Aquitaine.jpg)
http://britishheritage.com/eleanor-of-aquitaine/
One of the reasons I find her story very interesting, is after learning I'm a distant decedent of hers. Of course this goes for any monarch that had many children, but reading her story I found it all the more fascinating knowing i'm from her bloodline.
Though like many monarchs to who were heavily steeped in religious background, it was just a product of the time, whats more intresting his just how strong she was in her endeavors both on the battlefield with her handmaidens, and in her cause to maintain political stability between england and france, she suffered to being in a loveless marriage, and yet did everything for her children.
Humble, intelligent, modest and politically forthright, unlike many other monarchs in the family line who i really hate reading about at how disgusting some of them were, she wasn't one of them, and I hold her it higher regard.
Ghengis Khan. Conquered the world on a fucking horse with a bow and arrow. "Mercy is the seed of regret". The wonderful historian and Khan expert Harold Lamb wrote several books about the man. Good stuff.
Quote from: aitm on August 12, 2015, 10:38:20 AM
Ghengis Khan. Conquered the world on a fucking horse with a bow and arrow. "Mercy is the seed of regret". The wonderful historian and Khan expert Harold Lamb wrote several books about the man. Good stuff.
Not to mention the direct ancestor of about 16 million currently living men.
Lilith----just kidding. Nicola Tesla that gave us every modern invention that moved science and technology ahead so we can have a better life with AC electricity and his many inventions we cannot do without today. Even the electronics in our cars are a result of his research. It has taken modern science to make his invention practical today. He was so far ahead of his time its unbelievable, but he is sure not a role model with is dislike of fat people and his mistreatment of them. I would say this is true of all geniuses, that they are not role models. In every field of endeavor has shown this to be true, from the arts, to science, to politicians, to leaders, even Buddha who left his family in the brink. I wouldn't even say Mahatma Gandhi was a roll model running around in diapers. :biggrin2:
It's hard to pick a real favorite, but I like George Price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price) quite a bit.
His math told him there could be no true altruism in the world, but he couldn't accept that outcome of his own math; so he set out to prove wrong the equation he'd derived.
He gave away everything he had, and then killed himself.
Morphy is called "the pride and sorrow of chess," and I see Price as "the pride and sorrow of math."
Marilyn Monroe .
(http://funmozar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Full-body-pictures-of-Marilyn-Monroe-09.jpg)
I may be taking this too literally :)
Quote from: Termin on August 12, 2015, 07:56:15 PM
Marilyn Monroe .
(http://funmozar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Full-body-pictures-of-Marilyn-Monroe-09.jpg)
I may be taking this too literally :)
No, not at all. You are spot on! Or maybe Sophia Loren.
Benjamin Franklin - scientist, inventor, persuasive proponent of church/state separation, and probably as close to being atheist as anyone of his generation who ever went as far as he did in politics. Also the only politician other who I like. Incredibly enough, there may be a few today who will like as long as I don't learn too much of them, but they aren't history yet. As for what we really know about any historical figures, the best part of studying history is knowing that we don't have to worry about said figures anymore - you can quote those who look great all you want now, and they can't make you regret it later through their subsequent actions.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 13, 2015, 03:49:41 AM
Benjamin Franklin - scientist, inventor, persuasive proponent of church/state separation, and probably as close to being atheist as anyone of his generation who ever went as far as he did in politics. Also the only politician other who I like. Incredibly enough, there may be a few today who will like as long as I don't learn too much of them, but they aren't history yet. As for what we really know about any historical figures, the best part of studying history is knowing that we don't have to worry about said figures anymore - you can quote those who look great all you want now, and they can't make you regret it later through their subsequent actions.
Yeah, I take that same tack as you when thinking of hero's. I now tend to think that people can do hero actions, but it is hard to find one who lived an entire heroic life. Maybe my standards are too rigid. I learned that form sports. My first hero's were football players and later baseball players. Frank Gifford was my first hero and I wanted to be just like him. Then I grew to love baseball and the Yankees and of course, I idolized Babe Ruth. As I became older I read all I could about the man. It slowly dawned on me that he is not a person to show me how to live. Reading about Mickey Mantle showed me the same thing. And then on to the other 'hero's'--George Washington, and all the other hero's of US history. None were free of blemish. But then, they were simply people.
But I still have favorites. And I realize all have clay feet. But I have too many to single out one--Babe Ruth, of course and Mickey Mantle. Otto von Bismark, Franklin, Lincoln, Fredric Douglas, George Carlin--and I could go on. And I still have quite a few baseball hero's--Jeter for one--but I'll be damned if I'll ever read his life's story.
Thomas Edison. Say what you will about how he stole a lot of stuff from his flunkies and rivals, but one of his contributions was the big one, and was genuinely his.
Edison invented the industrial laboratory.
An industrial laboratory is what turns an invention into a product. It refines a proof of concept to an item that people would use in a practical setting, and in a form that may be mass-produced. It's what turns an idea that might change your life into something that does change your life, on a massive scale. Nikola Tesla might have been long on bright ideas, but very short on business sense; his inventions got nowhere until Edison's industrial laboratories refined them into products. The light bulb was a bright idea, but it took Edison to pore through thousands of materials to find out the right material for that filament, and to realize that the best way to maintain the life of the bulb was to fill it with an inert gas, not leave it as a vacuum.
Without the industrial laboratory, the modern world would not exist. Full stop.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is my favorite historical character, the most interesting US president and a subject of endless speculations. It's fun to pile them up beside each other and let them fight it out.
And I'd never want to be him, too much work being FDR.
Hatsune Miku! Oh, wait... Wrong Section :eyes:
The Marquis de Sade. Gretaest philosopher ever.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 13, 2015, 11:30:59 AM
The Marquis de Sade. Gretaest philosopher ever.
He kept company with priests and bishops...a right lovely triangle of righteousness and purity.
Archimedes. He coined Eureka!
Had the jist of calculus 2000 years before Liebniz. He also came up with Pi through his method of exhaustion, which I imagine took a lot of work. Unfortunately, I believe much of his other work was lost.
We should have an Archimedes day where we all run around wet and naked.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 13, 2015, 06:04:53 PM
Archimedes. He coined Eureka!
Had the jist of calculus 2000 years before Liebniz. He also came up with Pi through his method of exhaustion, which I imagine took a lot of work. Unfortunately, I believe much of his other work was lost.
We should have an Archimedes day where we all run around wet and naked.
And screw, don't forget screw :)
Quote from: Termin on August 13, 2015, 09:16:18 PM
And screw, don't forget screw :)
Those are just my personal favorites; I thought the way he derived Pi was ridiculously ingenious.
He excelled in many areas, which is another reason Im a huge fan.
For me it's got to be William Wallace...
(http://i57.tinypic.com/19pilk.jpg)
Wallace Monument, Stirling.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2zi9bia.jpg)
My bfs apartment has a great view over stirling, and can see the monument in the distance from their window. Didn't get to see it, but neither of them are big history buffs so didn't want to drive there.
I'm Scottish on my Mother's Side, so I , like many others of Scottish descent, claim him as an Ancestor :)
Buddha Constantine the Great. Yes, I'm fucking serious. The Romans were, oh how do I put this politely... assholes in the first degree. They didn't have a great scientific tradition to speak of, their education system was atrocious, and they wanted everyone else to be like them. Constantine's spreading of Christianity created conditions where Romans couldn't tolerate differing beliefs, causing the empire to fracture and allowing civilizations like the Arabians and Central Asians to start the scientific development that eventually snowballed into what we call the Enlightenment.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 14, 2015, 07:39:36 PM
Buddha Constantine the Great. Yes, I'm fucking serious. The Romans were, oh how do I put this politely... assholes in the first degree. They didn't have a great scientific tradition to speak of, their education system was atrocious, and they wanted everyone else to be like them. Constantine's spreading of Christianity created conditions where Romans couldn't tolerate differing beliefs, causing the empire to fracture and allowing civilizations like the Arabians and Central Asians to start the scientific development that eventually snowballed into what we call the Enlightenment.
I have no problem with that, m-fer pretty much changed the world.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 14, 2015, 07:39:36 PM
Buddha Constantine the Great. Yes, I'm fucking serious. The Romans were, oh how do I put this politely... assholes in the first degree. They didn't have a great scientific tradition to speak of, their education system was atrocious, and they wanted everyone else to be like them. Constantine's spreading of Christianity created conditions where Romans couldn't tolerate differing beliefs, causing the empire to fracture and allowing civilizations like the Arabians and Central Asians to start the scientific development that eventually snowballed into what we call the Enlightenment.
I figure he might have just been taking advantage of the situation to consolidate his power by appealing to what was at the time a popular movement.
Who knows, he may not have believed in any of it, his ends being entirely manipulative. Devising the rules of the cosmos to suit your personal interests would have been a fantastic way to control a population.
The Bible is so horribly written, spliced together haphazardly they must have been in a terrible hurry. This doesn't matter if you claim the author is divine, however.
We see this theme many times in history, Mesoamerica, Egypt, everywhere.
Isaac Newton. Now the word genius is one of the most misappropriated in the entire English language but he was
definitely one. He discovered the formula for gravity. He discovered the property of light. He co invented calculus
He invented the telescope. He wrote one of the greatest science books of all time. For Mathematica Principia is to
physics what Origins Of Species is to biology. And when he worked at the Royal Mint he improved productivity by
making the workers slow down so that that their rate of production was in synch with their heartbeat. He is held
in higher regard amongst physicists than Einstein is. Without a shadow of doubt one of the greatest minds ever
Here's another: Christopher Hitchens! I miss that one.
Can't decide on one. How do you guys just pick one like that?
Picking one isn't possible.
But two--okay.
Procopio produced the first 'ice cream' for the masses at his cafe in Paris. One does not get any more heroic than that. But a close second would be Babe Ruth, who invented modern day baseball. Baseball and ice cream! And a hot dog and a coke. (Keep the beer--boiled elephant piss--and garlic fries to yourself). Yes!
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 15, 2015, 11:16:24 AM
Can't decide on one. How do you guys just pick one like that?
First one that comes to mind. Now Ghengis Khan was not a great human being, but what he did in that era is spectacular. If we can overlook the brutality and pure "evil" that he brought with him in him being the original "scorched earth policy" he was an incredible leader. Unfortunately he also belongs in the same genre as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler so having him as a favorite historical figure maybe a worser indication of my upbringing as well. ;[
Quote from: aitm on August 15, 2015, 02:06:40 PM
First one that comes to mind. Now Ghengis Khan was not a great human being, but what he did in that era is spectacular. If we can overlook the brutality and pure "evil" that he brought with him in him being the original "scorched earth policy" he was an incredible leader. Unfortunately he also belongs in the same genre as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler so having him as a favorite historical figure maybe a worser indication of my upbringing as well. ;[
That mongol-turkic monster?! Killed how many milions of people again? Estimated 30 or 40 million people it said somewhere. 10 % of the world population at his time. Lol, you nutter. You just admire the power he wielded I guess. Did you read about him as kid for the first time?
Would it sound weird, if I told you there wasn't a name popped into my mind, but some series of criteria I just wanted to be filled. These games are not for me, I just suck at it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 15, 2015, 02:23:00 PM
That mongol-turkic monster?! Killed how many milions of people again?
History is replete with hundreds of people who are just as ruthless, some on smaller scales some the same, nonetheless, he was a boy, maybe 14 (if I recall) when he started gathering his followers. Perhaps the stories were a bit over the top, but I was enamored by them, and yes i was much younger. The "staff of nine yak tails" (if that was a real thing) was a pretty good story.
Quote from: aitm on August 15, 2015, 02:38:35 PM
History is replete with hundreds of people who are just as ruthless, some on smaller scales some the same, nonetheless, he was a boy, maybe 14 (if I recall) when he started gathering his followers. Perhaps the stories were a bit over the top, but I was enamored by them, and yes i was much younger. The "staff of nine yak tails" (if that was a real thing) was a pretty good story.
Yes, sure there are many ruthless filth...but aitm, I mean... Ghengis Khan? :lol: *Shakes head.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 15, 2015, 03:08:20 PM
Yes, sure there are many ruthless filth...but aitm, I mean... Ghengis Khan? :lol: *Shakes head.
Shoe, I await your choice.
OK. If I have to choose, it is going to be Russian navy officer Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov then.
I'm grateful to him for what he did in 27th of October 1962. He probably saved my life -along with the most of the world- before I was born. Turkey actively allied with USA and Italy in Cubean Missile Crisis against USSR and Cuba. If a nuclear war broke out that day the country was an open target. I wouldn't have existed. Most soldiers would just obey their superior's order. He didn't.
Another one. A couple of years ago, Pavlo Bondarev, an Ukranian young man aged 24, saved the lives of two 8 year old kids. He didn't even know them, saw them there that morning. He was waiting for the bus to work at the bus stop. He realises a car getting out of control and coming towards to the kids with great speed. He jumps and throws the kids away, save their lives. He dies in hospital later. This happens on his mother's birthday. Every fucking piece of shit media source should have given that news. Because that's the big fucking news on this planet. It makes me sob every time I remember it.
Redundant
The two most obvious for me are MLK and Ghandi, both of which probably need little explaining. In short, I respect them for their effort to make social change through peaceful methods, especially Ghandi because of the sheer scale of his efforts not just in India and South Africa but also for inspiring men like MLK and Nelson Mandela. Their work in peaceful solutions to oppressive and violent authority I think shows the most effective way to deal with said problem; when you fight these things with violence of your own, you only end up with more violent people in power.
Also on my list; Nelson Mandela, again for obvious reasons.
One who is historically questioned I will include is Dido. Although most of her stories come from legend rather than historical "fact", the fact of the matter is that for a thousand and a half more years, people truly believed this was "the truth". Her tricking of king Iarbas into giving her land (asking only for what she could surround with cowhide as a place for refugee, she cut the pieces into super-fine strips and encased a hill, which would become the city of Carthage) is a great story of wit. Likewise she is a female character of antiquity with brains.
I would also be tempted to add Odysseus and Dante (whom's life was interesting in itself), but that's probably getting too make believe :P.
I'll add more later, just busy getting ready for work now.
Yeah, I would definitely agree with Gandhi in my list.
Ditto!
Isn't interesting how all the great leaders, historical or not, who preached peace and love were assassinated like: Christ, Gandhi, JFK and King even in our own time, and yet the most war like or ruthless, and unethical are made hero's like: God, Truman, Jung Kin, Bush and his cohorts, Trump, Edison etc.? Is this what Freud meant by "death wish?" :doh:
Quote from: Solitary on August 16, 2015, 12:35:49 PM
Isn't interesting how….most war like or ruthless, and unethical are made hero's
I suggest the nature of humans are seen in the behavior of the child. We have all seen children play and they are first and foremost about themselves and their possessions. So our nature is rather brutish. We have to train our children and ourselves to be more ethical and loving.
Over the last several years we have seen multiple videos of natural born "enemies" in the animal world who when raised together not only have no animosity towards each other but a down right "loving" relationship which seems to counter what we were taught as youngsters that yes indeed momma cheetah has to teach the kids to hunt but perhaps it is not natural at all that they want to kill the antelope, they were taught too.
I suppose that many humans still adore the war-like champion due to the inherent violent tendencies we have buried not so deep in our dark little cellar.
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 01:17:28 PM
I suggest the nature of humans are seen in the behavior of the child.
I'm told that I never have been grumpy once as a child up to 11 years or something or NEVER cried as a baby and as a toddler. They brought me to my doctor when I was a little baby at some point because of this -when I was 2-2,5 at the nursery's first day, the kiddie car arrives at home at 21:00 with a great delay and while every toddler naturally scream their head of with dirty dipers, I wave smiling *hi mom! - something alarmed my therapist- and also played with my peers and got scared when they started to cry because it freaked me out. Never hit or pushed anyone. Also didn't cry when I injured myself and just went to my mom with 'I split my head' covered in blood. It's very alien to me, probbaly I did cry a few times but nothing big happened so people don't remember. Apparently, I also went around by myself, like totally just leave in a sec under everyone's nose and then came back after freaking out people to death. I didn't hang around with my peers after some time playing and just leave to play by myself. And didn't have any sense of possession to a very weird degree. Like leaving everything just there when I am finished, never carrying around anything or had a favourite toy or gave my toys away to others around. Also spit anything remotely sweet tasting when fed and absolutely refuse to eat or swallow. Hated chocolate. Although it doesn't have to do anything with intelligence, if I didn't start to speak freakishly early -seriously, apparently it creeped people out- they would probably end up sending me to some school for the mentally handicapped. :sad2: Esp. thinking that I apparently talked to myself a lot. And I talked so fast untill I was a young adult, it has always been a problem all my life. I sometimes think it's a miracle that I survived without any scars or bad memories.
I still don't have a sense of possession much, I always hated shopping, shiny things and big houses and even if I want to have something very much I easily forget about it. I cry easily as an adult, but it is VERY difficult for me to ask for help. I hate to kill even flies, but I am not bad with mosquitos, but they rarely bite me. And I always hated poeple going around in groups too close like a clan. Esp. girls going around in packs and always conflicted with them until the university years. I was always blamed with not to follow through. I started to eat chocolate at 30. Bitter ones. I still detes sweet taste. But I don't talk that fast anymore, but still fast for most people.
This^ is an that adult couldn't learn and pretty much grew up as the same person.
And I can't be the only one. What you describe in essence is not that common. Children, humans mostly learn it by imitating it. I don't mean we born with a tabula rasa of course. Sometimes, like me, they don't learn. May be, because they are stupid or weird or this and that. But mostly we are weird. We just imitate to fit in. That's the thing with violence and children. They see it everywhere. And they imitate it, get to like it and admire it, because it is the never ending trend in human culture. They fit in.
I disagree, you're just a weird cat. :P~~
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 02:25:27 PM
I disagree, you're just a weird cat. :P~~
:lol:
Me? Weird? :snooty:
Quote from: aitm on August 16, 2015, 01:17:28 PM
I suggest the nature of humans are seen in the behavior of the child. We have all seen children play and they are first and foremost about themselves and their possessions. So our nature is rather brutish. We have to train our children and ourselves to be more ethical and loving.
Over the last several years we have seen multiple videos of natural born "enemies" in the animal world who when raised together not only have no animosity towards each other but a down right "loving" relationship which seems to counter what we were taught as youngsters that yes indeed momma cheetah has to teach the kids to hunt but perhaps it is not natural at all that they want to kill the antelope, they were taught too.
I suppose that many humans still adore the war-like champion due to the inherent violent tendencies we have buried not so deep in our dark little cellar.
When it comes to ideas which we are taught, we often tend to presume too much the weight of the influence of teaching. I'm not saying children should be taught less, but that it should be individualized a lot more based on the natural traits which they exhibit, rather than the futile attempts which have been made to change less desired behaviors. For example, the idea that animals are born able to crawl, communicate, walk, run, and sometimes even climb on their day of birth, and since the human infant can do nothing but suck at a mother's breast, then it must be a "Blank Slate", whose future behaviors are entirely subject to environmental factors and teaching. Some groups really get up in arms and extremely irrational in shouting down any challenge to this idea, but the facts on genetic research have revealed strong evidence that human behavior is also (to at least some extent) genetically influenced. You cannot really mold a human mind like a piece of clay, some are naturally more inclined to take chances than others, some are naturally more inclined to be thoughtful, and others will be naturally more emotional.
Your example demonstrates that animals are not behaviorally ruled by the wisdom of instinct, they can learn to get along. Well of course they can, as do human children. If it takes humans more time, then it happens to be true that simpler animals are born with fully functioning brains, while the human newborn hasn't the hardware behind its eyes to see properly, nor the muscular control to do so much as roll over on its own. Of course all animals are born selfish, how could one not be when the only life form which it has ever known was itself while passing through the birth canal? Experience is the teacher of all living creatures, and it certainly takes experience for one to learn unselfishness.
Everything we learn takes experience, but some individuals may learn more of one trait than of others by the infuence of their genes, just as some may have blue eyes and others some other color. Education is an important means of focusing on desirable traits, but those who pretend it can make anyone the perfect servant, the perfect soldier, the perfect leader, or the perfect anything are foolish. When education is focused on the needs of the group instead of on bringing out the best in the individual, you will end up with a population similar to America as it now is. It isn't education which defines our human nature, it's our genes! Furthermore, these behavioral variances are distributed throughout all cultures and races, so I hope nobody's going to be like the shitheads who have called me a "racist" just for stating what is so plain to see. My experience is that those who angrily oppose any challenge to the supreme influence of education and upbringing are those who wish to wield god-like power over the human mind, because they are very angry and selfish people. I'm just trying to point out how the nature of each individual is itself individual. Remember, evolution never worked on any species, only the genes of individuals.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 16, 2015, 03:37:50 PM
I'm not saying children should be taught less, but that it should be individualized a lot more based on the natural traits which they exhibit
nice idea but cost prohibitive most likely, we can't determine that a child who kicks a cat is going to be a psycho let alone how to teach them to their potential
QuoteYou cannot really mold a human mind like a piece of clay, some are naturally more inclined to take chances than others
Ture dat, some are plain out lazy.
QuoteI'm just trying to point out how the nature of each individual is itself individual
No argument, a stroll down any city street will attest that we have the whole gamut in the human species from "normal" to fuckin whack-a-doodle square.
Aitm, which costs more: the status quo, where millions of Americans have potential but aren't productive, or the cost of actual education for all?
"...some are just plain lazy"
They said that of Sir Isaac Newton when he was a student. His life story and personal description makes it clear that he was high on the autism spectrum, and like so many today who live on the spectrum and benefit so little from the one-method-fits-all education of today, he would not likely have amounted to anything if he wasn't born to wealth. Can you imagine the world today without the benefit of Newton's contributions?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 15, 2015, 02:23:00 PM
That mongol-turkic monster?! Killed how many milions of people again? Estimated 30 or 40 million people it said somewhere. 10 % of the world population at his time. Lol, you nutter. You just admire the power he wielded I guess. Did you read about him as kid for the first time?
Would it sound weird, if I told you there wasn't a name popped into my mind, but some series of criteria I just wanted to be filled. These games are not for me, I just suck at it.
Thats an interesting thought, it would seem many of the most famous people in history were genocidal (too many for my liking anyways)
People like Khan, Alexander and Julius are highly thought of; yet all of these men did the kinds of things we find appalling, and when their examples are followed disaster does as well.
Sure their political and military skills are second to none, but I think those ought to be weighed against their irredeemable qualities.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 16, 2015, 11:08:55 PM
Aitm, which costs more: the status quo, where millions of Americans have potential but aren't productive, or the cost of actual education for all?
"...some are just plain lazy"
Hey I agreed with you agreeing with me, however as I have said otherplaces, we don't have the teachers who have the ability to recognize the many differences and understand what and how to make the best use of what children possess.
Lazy? I have seen lazy people. I mean lay on the ground not even crawl lazy ass people. So it that nature or nuture?
Quote from: aitm on August 17, 2015, 09:00:07 AM
Hey I agreed with you agreeing with me, however as I have said otherplaces, we don't have the teachers who have the ability to recognize the many differences and understand what and how to make the best use of what children possess.
In my last post I suggested grouping children for classrooms taught by teachers for more general categories of learning style, a perfectly reasonable increment toward progressive improvement. Most would agree that our education system is failing, and is in dire need of new ways of reaching students. Your assessment is akin to the paleolithic clan which lives in a huge flint quarry, whose elders won't approve the use of any hunting weapons other than clubs and all-wood spears because they don't have a supply of flint weapons.
Quote from: aitm on August 17, 2015, 09:00:07 AM
Lazy? I have seen lazy people. I mean lay on the ground not even crawl lazy ass people.
I've seen those people too, believe me. I've also seen people who aren't lazy, but get little or nothing from the existing education system.
Quote from: aitm on August 17, 2015, 09:00:07 AMSo it that nature or nuture?
I didn't argue in favor of the tabula rasa nurturists, much the opposite. Then again, the Genetic Determinists which inspired much evil that culminated in the world wars wasn't quite right either - I would like to hope that most people today who study the mind understand that it's a bit more complicated than that. Still, there are radical groups such as the militant feminists who think they can completely reinvent our culture. Over on Patheos, I got into an argument with one of those - it quickly turned nasty, and she downright purile. She insisted it's 100% possible that a culture may evolve where men favor the wearing of pink, lacy dresses, because cultural influence is everything. When her two-year old son showed more interest in such clothing, she encouraged him to wear it in public, as if children of that age never confuse their fascination with pretty objects with the self-image which they are too young to have even contemplated.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 17, 2015, 10:45:47 AM
Your assessment is akin to the paleolithic clan which lives in a huge flint quarry, whose elders won't approve the use of any hunting weapons other than clubs .....
Oh quit that, all I suggested is we are ill-equipped to access children as you suggest when our teachers are not educated enough. Now if you suggested a nice way to implement this grand scheme of yours then bingo. But you appear to imply we can go from 0 to 100 using a deck of flash cards.
Quote from: aitm on August 17, 2015, 12:09:20 PM
Oh quit that, all I suggested is we are ill-equipped to access children as you suggest when our teachers are not educated enough. Now if you suggested a nice way to implement this grand scheme of yours then bingo. But you appear to imply we can go from 0 to 100 using a deck of flash cards.
Funny, but I don't recall implying that at all - much the opposite, in fact. While the issue of health care in this country can be be solved quickly by the single-payer plan in light of the fact that it has been proven to work in other countries which share our cultural foundations, I believe improvements to education must progress incrementally and be tested along the way. The problem is it hasn't consistently moved forward at all.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 17, 2015, 12:27:53 PM
Funny, but I don't recall implying that at all
And I don't recall anywhere saying the status quo was working just fine either.
Quote from: aitm on August 17, 2015, 01:34:42 PM
And I don't recall anywhere saying the status quo was working just fine either.
Fair enough.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate..."Cool Hand Luke
Here's a lesser-known but awesome historical figure: Grace Hopper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper). She invented the first compilier, came up with the idea that led to COBOL, and popularized the term debugging (a moth got stuck in a relay).
Yikes, almost impossible to say, there are so many to choose from, though I should say one of them is still living: Sir Tim Berners-Lee -- just think what the Internet would look like had he patented the Web instead of opening it up.
Florence Nightingale, she redefined the way hospitals are being run now.I like her courage and her determination to save countless lives.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 17, 2015, 02:27:52 PM
Here's a lesser-known but awesome historical figure: Grace Hopper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper). She invented the first compilier, came up with the idea that led to COBOL, and popularized the term debugging (a moth got stuck in a relay).
I was her driver one day at the North Island Naval Air Station (new supercomputer dedication) back in the late '80s. She told me that she never thought COBOL would out live her. I could hear her laugh very clearly in 1999 as Y2K panic spread through the computer industry.
Management of computer systems is not as fun as inventing a new software tool/product. Writing the first Excel program at MS might have been fun, but managing all the inexorable crappy spreadsheets with/without macros .. that is dog work.
The cost of migrating old code is prohibitive ... you have to just kill it. The cost of replacing old code is prohibitive ... you have to just leave it to your lucky successor ;-) COBOL will never die, it will only fade away, like the old soldier it is.
Alexander the Great
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Alexander_the_Great_mosaic.jpg)
He's the most interesting to me.
Great folks, but you aren't saying enough of why you find X person interesting ;-) Assuming you know why.
Did you enjoy the Oliver Stone movie on Alexander? Did you see the YouTube on the making of that movie?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
You are alive because of him. Be grateful.
It is too hard to specify one. But I'll choose Erastosthenes, around 200 BC greek. He was called "Beta" by critics because he was "2nd best at everything". Being 2nd best at everything seems pretty impressive to me. He accurately measured the circumference of the Earth, the tilt of the Earth's axis, and the distance to the Sun.
But there are a few others...
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson because they were about the last people who actually knew almost everything there was to know at the time.
Alexander Hamilton, and not because of the popular play. He constructed the entirely modern banking system.
Carvaca, Asian Indian of uncertain date but 1 or 2 centuries BC; one of the earliest explicitly atheists....
Ah, you guys are way too serious. Babe Ruth because he changed forever (and in a grand and glorious way) the game of baseball.......................and ate a ton of ice cream and loved hot dogs!
The Cubs.
Thanks, Obama!
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 03, 2016, 10:46:24 AM
Ah, you guys are way too serious. Babe Ruth because he changed forever (and in a grand and glorious way) the game of baseball.......................and ate a ton of ice cream and loved hot dogs!
Few sports figures matter to history. And Ruth was not one of them. I would give you more credence had you said Jim Thorpe or Jackie Robinson.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 02:57:38 PM
Few sports figures matter to history. And Ruth was not one of them. I would give you more credence had you said Jim Thorpe or Jackie Robinson.
True--few sports figures matter to history. But to the history of the sport in which he participated, Ruth was truly transformational, and I'd even say, game saving. Why? He was following hot on the heels of the Black Sox scandal. That could have been sport killing. He changed the nature of the game. Prior to Ruth, the game was eek out the runs with stolen bases and bunts. He brought the homerun to the world. (He hit more homers in 1920, as any team did in his division.) He demonstrated that power could be and should be the name of the game. He put butts in the seats when the sport needed it. And his style of baseball, played even today, make the game very popular. Thrope was a gifted athlete, one of the best of all time. But Ruth was as well. He was a hall of fame pitcher before he became a full time hitter--and a hall of famer as that as well. Robinson was a hero of the true sense of the word; but the game was as popular as it was because of Ruth. So, you can say that without Ruth, Robinson's statement would not have been as loud or impactful. He was not exactly a role model for people to follow---but he did take some of his fellow Yankees and barnstorm around the country playing in small towns across the country, bring the sport to all; and he did love people and people loved him. He was the best ambassador the game has ever had.
In the large scheme of things on the world stage he was for sure, not Otto Von Bismark; Ruth never had control of any policy making of any kind. But the people of Japan still remember his visits.
While Ruth did say, "Every strike brings me closer to my next home run.", Bismark said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election. " So, Ruth was not a world mover or shaker, he was and is still the most remarkable player in sports history. In my book, anyway.
Marcus Tullius Cicero ... the greatest Roman politician and martyr. Gaius Julius Caesar was a great general, but a martyr only to his own ego.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2016, 06:09:40 PM
But aren't we all?
Cicero was the best lawyer in Rome. We actually have the text of his most famous law case (the one that made him famous). He made sure to record it for posterity ... for our own sakes of course!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUcDdUG22JU
Behold, the Roman Perry Mason!
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 03, 2016, 05:23:21 PM
True--few sports figures matter to history. But to the history of the sport in which he participated, Ruth was truly transformational, and I'd even say, game saving. Why? He was following hot on the heels of the Black Sox scandal. That could have been sport killing. He changed the nature of the game. Prior to Ruth, the game was eek out the runs with stolen bases and bunts. He brought the homerun to the world. (He hit more homers in 1920, as any team did in his division.) He demonstrated that power could be and should be the name of the game. He put butts in the seats when the sport needed it. And his style of baseball, played even today, make the game very popular. Thrope was a gifted athlete, one of the best of all time. But Ruth was as well. He was a hall of fame pitcher before he became a full time hitter--and a hall of famer as that as well. Robinson was a hero of the true sense of the word; but the game was as popular as it was because of Ruth. So, you can say that without Ruth, Robinson's statement would not have been as loud or impactful. He was not exactly a role model for people to follow---but he did take some of his fellow Yankees and barnstorm around the country playing in small towns across the country, bring the sport to all; and he did love people and people loved him. He was the best ambassador the game has ever had.
In the large scheme of things on the world stage he was for sure, not Otto Von Bismark; Ruth never had control of any policy making of any kind. But the people of Japan still remember his visits.
While Ruth did say, "Every strike brings me closer to my next home run.", Bismark said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election. " So, Ruth was not a world mover or shaker, he was and is still the most remarkable player in sports history. In my book, anyway.
I grant that Ruth was a great hitter and pitcher. But Ty Cobb was the best player.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 01:32:55 AM
I grant that Ruth was a great hitter and pitcher. But Ty Cobb was the best player.
No, no, no!!! People hated Cobb--Loved Ruth!! The only thing Cobb could do better was steal bases--and that, with the RBI, are the two most over-rated hitter stats.
My favorite historical figure?
Father Damien of Molokaï.
As wrong as I think he was in his convictions. For as far as I can see, he held true to them and held true to what he thought was best. He didn't just talk the talk. He walked the walk.
His life was one of devotion and improvement for his fellow man, in the way he saw best fit. It destroyed him. But he kept at it, the best he could.
He did not save millions. He did not perform miracles. He did not advance the world.
But he saw what he could do for those less fortunate than him. And he did it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 06, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
No, no, no!!! People hated Cobb--Loved Ruth!! The only thing Cobb could do better was steal bases--and that, with the RBI, are the two most over-rated hitter stats.
You didn't ask "most loved" baseball player, you asked "best". Cobb was best. He could steal bases, knew where a fly ball was coming down as it left the player's bat, and routinely threw out players at 1st base from right field.
He went 6 for 6 in one game. Asked about Ruth's home runs, In Charles C. Alexander's biography of Cobb, he told a sportswriter, "I'll show you something today. I'm going for home runs for the first time in my career." He hit 3. He hated home runs as being against the idea of the game.
He was an evil racist bastard. He was also the best ballplayer ever.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 04:17:15 AM
You didn't ask "most loved" baseball player, you asked "best". Cobb was best. He could steal bases, knew where a fly ball was coming down as it left the player's bat, and routinely threw out players at 1st base from right field.
He went 6 for 6 in one game. Asked about Ruth's home runs, In Charles C. Alexander's biography of Cobb, he told a sportswriter, "I'll show you something today. I'm going for home runs for the first time in my career." He hit 3. He hated home runs as being against the idea of the game.
He was an evil racist bastard. He was also the best ballplayer ever.
Willie Mays was a better player than Cobb. He could do everything that Cobb did and he was a better hitter; better in that he produced more meaningful offense than Cobb did. I love baseball stats; but I will not start trotting out the stats that prove my point; it would bore you and everybody else to tears. Anyway, not to say that Cobb was not great--he was; best hitter of his era. It is too bad that stolen bases are just not anywhere as valuable as a homer. Or a double. Power crushes stolen bases all the time. In his younger days, Ruth was as good a fielder as Cobb; and remember Ruth had had a career as a pitcher prior to becoming the best hitter ever. For several decades he held the record for the most scoreless innings pitched in WS games. He was a hall of fame level pitcher. Then, even as a pitcher, he hit 29 homers; was bought by the Yankees and the rest is history. All players are still measured by Ruth. When dealing with stats (not just the typical ones, but the more complicated and accurate ones) whether or not a player was loved or not matters not. Statistically Ruth is the best hitter of all time, was a better than average fielder and a hall of fame level pitcher and there you have it--the best baseball player of all time. I would say that Bonds is close to Ruth as a hitter and was a better fielder in his prime. Mays was also close to Ruth as a total player--but did not pitch.
Not only was he the best of all time, but he transformed the game from a single, and SB, a bunt to third and a squeeze play at the plate.--getting 1 run was the object of that type of game. Ruth demonstrated the value and power of a walk and then a homer. In 1919, baseball, because of the Black Sox scandal, the game was close to being down and out. The excitement of watching Ruth hit homer after homer changed the game--and people started coming the game in numbers not seen before. Look at the year-to-years stats for each league and it is easy to see how the offense changed; Ruth was the spearhead for that change; that change saved the game. Hence, in my world, he is one of the most influential people of all time. :))
My apologies for the old reply...
Statistics aren't everything. Mays was great. Ruth was great. But with Cobb, it's not what he did, but what he could have done and didn't. He had an idea of what the game should be and played it that way. I detest his views, but admire what he could do. When he chose to, he could do do any part of the game as well as anyone.
I suppose I look back to older play in sports. For example, I do not understand modern basketball at all. Players foul on every play, travel routinely, palm the ball and get away with violations that (to my mind) ruin the game.
Just a thought...
Sportsmanship is dead, long time. Money and betting ruined it, even for the gladiators in Rome ;-)
As far as I know, none of the players I mentioned were involved in money or betting. Did you have anything applicable to say?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 05:21:56 AM
My apologies for the old reply...
Statistics aren't everything. Mays was great. Ruth was great. But with Cobb, it's not what he did, but what he could have done and didn't. He had an idea of what the game should be and played it that way. I detest his views, but admire what he could do. When he chose to, he could do do any part of the game as well as anyone.
I suppose I look back to older play in sports. For example, I do not understand modern basketball at all. Players foul on every play, travel routinely, palm the ball and get away with violations that (to my mind) ruin the game.
Just a thought...
I am not saying that Cobb was not influential--he had enormous impact on the game. He WAS the face of the game. And he was universally hated and feared. He brought violence to the game; whether on the field, under the stands or in the clubhouse. He was so hated that in 1910 his teammates conspired to let Lajoie get 6 hits in the final game of the season so that Lajoie would win the batting title. That's being hated................Ruth's pitching did not change the game. But his personality and hitting did. He was almost universally loved and he convinced the younger generation that they wanted to be Ruth--few had wanted to grow up to be Cobb. Some played his style, and some still do. But speed is not the be all, end all that it was in Cobb's time. Home runs still are one of the desired outcomes in baseball. Champions are built upon power, not generally speed. Cobb's style did not change the face of the game; in fact it is the face of the old game. Ruth and power changed the game forever. Think of '98 when McGwire and Sosa were battling it out for the homer crown; most baseball people say that that saved the game that was clearly limping along after the 1994 strike. Power is the name of the game, and Ruth is the face of power. Bonds is the best hitter of the game ever and he is compared to Ruth to prove it--not Cobb.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 08:53:54 AM
I am not saying that Cobb was not influential--he had enormous impact on the game. He WAS the face of the game. And he was universally hated and feared. He brought violence to the game; whether on the field, under the stands or in the clubhouse. He was so hated that in 1910 his teammates conspired to let Lajoie get 6 hits in the final game of the season so that Lajoie would win the batting title. That's being hated................Ruth's pitching did not change the game. But his personality and hitting did. He was almost universally loved and he convinced the younger generation that they wanted to be Ruth--few had wanted to grow up to be Cobb. Some played his style, and some still do. But speed is not the be all, end all that it was in Cobb's time. Home runs still are one of the desired outcomes in baseball. Champions are built upon power, not generally speed. Cobb's style did not change the face of the game; in fact it is the face of the old game. Ruth and power changed the game forever. Think of '98 when McGwire and Sosa were battling it out for the homer crown; most baseball people say that that saved the game that was clearly limping along after the 1994 strike. Power is the name of the game, and Ruth is the face of power. Bonds is the best hitter of the game ever and he is compared to Ruth to prove it--not Cobb.
I admire the dedication of your replies and the outstanding defense of players other than Cobb. I really do. Are you, by any chance, George Wills in real life? :)
But we are arguing apples and oranges. Personally, I find Cobb reprehensible. If he were a family member, I wouldn't talk to him. If a neighbor, I would shun him. I do not in any way forgive him his bigotry and violence on or off the field. He should have been banned from the game for sharpening his spikes and using them for injury. But that guy could PLAY!
That doesn't mean I don't admire so many others. I love to watch Ken Burns' Baseball from start to finish. I love Ruth for his pitching and hitting ability. Mays was awesome. But I separate skill from personality in sports.
It is probably not a coincidence that my 2nd favorite player is Pete Rose. Cheater, gambler, player extraordinaire. Almost Cobb drive reborn. And I hope Rose never gets into the Hall Of Fame.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 10:16:59 AM
I admire the dedication of your replies and the outstanding defense of players other than Cobb. I really do. Are you, by any chance, George Wills in real life? :)
But we are arguing apples and oranges. Personally, I find Cobb reprehensible. If he were a family member, I wouldn't talk to him. If a neighbor, I would shun him. I do not in any way forgive him his bigotry and violence on or off the field. He should have been banned from the game for sharpening his spikes and using them for injury. But that guy could PLAY!
That doesn't mean I don't admire so many others. I love to watch Ken Burns' Baseball from start to finish. I love Ruth for his pitching and hitting ability. Mays was awesome. But I separate skill from personality in sports.
It is probably not a coincidence that my 2nd favorite player is Pete Rose. Cheater, gambler, player extraordinaire. Almost Cobb drive reborn. And I hope Rose never gets into the Hall Of Fame.
Baseball is my passion, so I surpass George Wills and his repub brain. :) Anyway, I don't think we are talking apples and oranges here. Cobb was a massive talent--he'd be a superstar now if alive. And he had a huge impact, the biggest, even beyond Lajoie who was massively popular (had a team named after him--Cleveland Naps I think) but Cobb was trans-formative for his time. But his time ended in 1920 with the emergence of Babe Ruth. Overall, I'd say Ruth was more talented than Cobb--and maybe even more than any other player, ever. If he had used half of the training programs that are routine today, he'd have had even larger numbers. His style of play changed the face of the game forever--not just for a decade or so. If I were to try to put together an alltime 25 man squad, would Cobb even start? Where would he fit in an outfield of Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Williams, Bonds, Speaker, Aaron--not sure I'd even start the guy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 12:56:59 PM
Baseball is my passion, so I surpass George Wills and his repub brain. :) Anyway, I don't think we are talking apples and oranges here. Cobb was a massive talent--he'd be a superstar now if alive. And he had a huge impact, the biggest, even beyond Lajoie who was massively popular (had a team named after him--Cleveland Naps I think) but Cobb was trans-formative for his time. But his time ended in 1920 with the emergence of Babe Ruth. Overall, I'd say Ruth was more talented than Cobb--and maybe even more than any other player, ever. If he had used half of the training programs that are routine today, he'd have had even larger numbers. His style of play changed the face of the game forever--not just for a decade or so. If I were to try to put together an alltime 25 man squad, would Cobb even start? Where would he fit in an outfield of Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Williams, Bonds, Speaker, Aaron--not sure I'd even start the guy.
OK, Koufax and Johnson pitching, Bench, Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Brooks Robinson infield, Cobb, Mays and Williams outfield right to left. Ruth designated hitter and backup pitcher. Stengel Manager.
Beat that!
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 02:18:52 PM
OK, Koufax and Johnson pitching, Bench, Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Brooks Robinson infield, Cobb, Mays and Williams outfield right to left. Ruth designated hitter and backup pitcher. Stengel Manager.
Beat that!
To make matters worse, do you pick your team using career stats--or top 1/2 seasons? I will assume career; for me the two lists would be different.
Berra, Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Schmidt, infield--Williams, Mays, Mantle and Ruth dh--backup pitcher Pedro Martinez (he had the best two yr. total in history)--Stengel has to manage!!!
Too we don't live close enough together, for I have a board game (Strat-O-Matic) in which I have the cards for those two teams in both 3 yrs bests and career stats. We could do a face-to-face 7 game series and I'd show you my team was the best! :))
I guess this is my favorite historical figure:
(http://hollywoodshow.com/store/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/f/i/file_104_6.jpg)
Not bad, huh?
My favorite historical figure is Jesus Christ.
The historian H. G. Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by ‘what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.’ Wells acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.â€
Alexander the Great, Charlemagne the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: “Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.â€
By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years. As one writer aptly expressed it:
“All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully.â€
Quote from: aitm on August 12, 2015, 10:38:20 AM
Ghengis Khan. Conquered the world on a fucking horse with a bow and arrow. "Mercy is the seed of regret". The wonderful historian and Khan expert Harold Lamb wrote several books about the man. Good stuff.
No way.
Who is following him today?
No, my choiche is Muhammad.
Dead for 14 centuries, and his followers are 1.5 billion, just as a nice, tolerant and peaceful as he was.
Say a bad word about him in public and you are dead meat.
No other historical figure reaches out from the grave to kick your arse to hell.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 04:19:54 PM
To make matters worse, do you pick your team using career stats--or top 1/2 seasons? I will assume career; for me the two lists would be different.
Berra, Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Schmidt, infield--Williams, Mays, Mantle and Ruth dh--backup pitcher Pedro Martinez (he had the best two yr. total in history)--Stengel has to manage!!!
Too we don't live close enough together, for I have a board game (Strat-O-Matic) in which I have the cards for those two teams in both 3 yrs bests and career stats. We could do a face-to-face 7 game series and I'd show you my team was the best! :))
Well, when you get down to it, no proof but on the field, and that can't ever happen. *sigh*
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 05:28:26 AM
Well, when you get down to it, no proof but on the field, and that can't ever happen. *sigh*
Next time you are in CA, let me know. The cards and a room are waiting! :))
Abraham Lincoln, his quotes are great .