Quote:
|
Originally Posted by james t kirk
The only thing in this post that makes any sense.
|
I thought the point I was attempting to make was clear enough to not need any explanation .... how wrong I was.
First, I guess we need to define what we mean by "change the world". For me, this can mean many things and my reply attempted to convey this by also pointing out we will never know what John Lennon was capable of AFTER he was killed.
I suppose it is possible to assume he could have changed the world of music as we know it, although unlikely since he was pretty much past his prime when he was killed. There is also his humanitarian efforts to consider. Who knows what change this could have had on our world. It's also not unreasonable to think he could have fathered another child. Who knows if that child did not grow up to do something so profound and life altering, it impacted everyone. Point being, change is a relative thing and can be defined in many ways. Will your life be completely different because John is dead? Most likely not. Is it possible that had he not been killed, there is a slim chance SOMETHING he did could have had some influence in your life, or the life of someone else? That is not unthinkable.
The reason I used Adolph Hitler as an example was to A) refer to someone we know who had a very profound impact on our world .. and .. B) to attempt to demonstrate that IF Hitler died as a child you may not have ever known who he was, hence assuming his death had no impact on the world as we knew it back then, BUT, had he died as a child it would have most certainly had a huge changing impact as history well knows today.
I can't help it the butterfly theory came to mind on this one. So again, change is a relative thing. Lastly, the author of the thread ask for thoughts .. these are but a few.