:rolleyes:

Right. And Edward the Longshanks too? Or Henry the Curthose?

I repeat. Name one please.

People love to praise famous names. Actual historical accomplisments are often quite different.

You can go to the library along with the person who suggested Ghandi. I don't praise hard-core racists and I don't think you should either.

Hitler was a vegetarian and hated smoking tobacco, should we all agree that Adolph Hitler was admirably health conscious, pretty much on the cutting edge for California liberalism.

Praise for racists, incompetent warmongers and dictators?

I think us humans can do better than that.

No surprise there. I expected that reply. You are posting true to form.

Negative is the answer. I just have experience at many forums and have seen a degree of Scottish nationalism on display that makes the American variety seem rather tame by comparison. No one else on the planet can possible compete.

If ain't Scottish, its crap. Yeah, we all know how wonderful Scotland is.

Btw, I don't see much value in replying in regard to your querry regarding the history of the Huguenot contributions in Britain or Holland. Your comments regarding Claudius and Julius suggest to me that actual factual history is not relevant to you.

Certainly one of history's greatest women, bar none.

Jeremy Bentham: he's an important figure in the development of of modern ethical theory, namely Utilitarianism. He was also a significant English voice of dissent and reform of early 19th century cities and urban conditions, forerunner of animal weflare (not rights).

P. Cornelius Scipio: manged to out-Hannibal Hannibal, but in fairness, his wasn't the lynchpin of the SPW, as he built on the successes of the people who came before him. Ruthless, but a competent, useful commander.


Alexander Hamilton: Helped establish the early Republic's economic system and build up industrial infrastructure, develop a national banking system, which was sorely needed, and a sounder financial backing. He was a forward thinking, looking to urbanization and industry instead of Jeffersonian agriculture. He was also an prick.

__________________

dont you think Bentham's account was a bit crude : pushpin as good as poetry ? I would have thought a utilitarian would go for J.S Mill. But any way Kantianism is such a better theory

__________________
Viva Fidel

"If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism"

"North Americans don't understand... that our country is not just Cuba; our country is also humanity"

Bentham's Utiltiarianism was just the foundational philosophy. I picked him only for the basic concept he put together, which still exists. It's been modified extensively over time by various people, yea. I more follow Singer and R.M. Hare's views.

I like a lot of Bentham's core ideas, such as the principle of Utility and the idea of equal consideration for like interests, the focus on consequences etc.

Some people are really into Kant, yea. I can't say I like him. I find some problems with the absolutism of Kantian Ethics and the assumptions underpinning the categorical imperative. It's terribly vague and assumes that people will create universal duties that don't conflict. I also coudln't grasp an ethical system that ignores consequences and focus on intent. Ideally, I think consequences matter most, but there should be a blend when we deal with people's behaviour. One "pure" system is rarely good.

__________________

Fair enough for choosing Bentham But isn't Singers stance that it's right to have sex with animals provided the animal doesn't suffer and you enjoy it ? I find that a bit weird lol

I prefer Kant's theory for the exact reason you dont. Motive being within our control and consequences outwith, i think motive has to be the measure in assessing the value of an action. I will agree with you on the vagueness issue though - it's pretty easy to argue a multiple of positions within a Kantian framework.

__________________
Viva Fidel

"If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism"

"North Americans don't understand... that our country is not just Cuba; our country is also humanity"

At risk of a major thread digression, I agree that consequences are the most important factor in ethical questions. Motive is something that is entirely subjective and cannot be known by anyone save the self. It thus cannot be reliably or rationaly judged by others.

I prefer my ethical judgements to be rational.

Who told you you were God, White Rabbit?

It represented an idea he had that was way ahead of his time.

Conquered Gaul, then won a civil war against a man who commanded a force ten times his size?

You know, I don't give two ****************s what your definition of a great man is. That's why I posted my list.




He built the wall.

He had an idea that he tried to defend. And he was a great general, too, he envisioned the strategy that may have beaten the legions if Caesar (the greatest general) hadn't trapped him at Alesia.

Yep, because it matters how I refer to him. You knew who I was talking about, you're just being a dick here. No offense. Also, I've looked it up, and different sources use the 'the,' while some don't.

Whatever. He was a damn fine general.

That's exactly what I wrote, did you take it for sarcasm?

It wasn't him who made the decision. You should read up on it, there was never any doubt about our using it.

Yeah, but winning the Pacific War sort of counterbalances that in my mind.

Never considered that you might make me angry by being an asshole about, of all things, a list of my favorite people of all time, did you?
Your claim that he was a racist go out the window when you remember that he was assassinated by a Hindu for being too nice to the Muslims.

This is so breathtakingly stupid I can't figure out what to say.

Maybe I could say that there's no objective criteria for deciding who's a great person in history, and I don't care if my list is silly or easy to mock. At all.

I forgot about the rest of music though! How stupid of me!

John Lennon: strong advocate of social change, not to mention he's my favorite musician.

Bob Dylan: great music, and another advocate of social change.

Led Zeppelin: Second Greatest Band Ever. (The first place title goes to the Beatles.)

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The problem with Woodrow Wilson was his cow-boy style foreign policy. He got the United States into a war it shouldn't have entered, and his lack of tact and stubborn personality helped derail the Treaty of Versailles.

Additionally, he's responsible for helping to resegregate the US Military, and was terribly racist.

He did do some good things, though.


I have also seen Richard the Lionheart called "the," but it's probably because it sounds better, flows.

__________________