What is Digg?188 Comments
- Hetman, on 07/02/2008, -6/+77This is an easy question. If you are a fan of modern medicine you are going to have to choose Darwin. I am not saying lincoln was not a great man. But Darwin did more for humanity in general than Lincoln did. Lincoln is more important in american history but if we look at it globally Darwin was much more important.
- Conwaysb0718, on 07/02/2008, -13/+80natural selection vs. a guy who did everything in and beyond his power to keep the United States together...
Me, i pick Darwin. - dan_s, on 07/02/2008, -0/+59Any article that uses ASTROLOGY as a way of measuring people needs to be read carefully.
- Roland1232, on 07/03/2008, -4/+31Darwin is just a theory. Gaps in the fossil records show he never really existed.
- TheMachine1, on 07/02/2008, -10/+36To vote Lincoln you have to prove he was the only one who could preserve the Union
and that preserving the Union was good for the world. Thats debatable.
The cost effective solution to slavery was for the federal government to buy
slaves on the open market , free them and move them to western states. That would have drove the cost of slaves up to the point hiring poor whites or investments in machinery would be more cost effective. It also would have avoided war and maintained the Union.(Note importing slaves was made illegal years before).
Voting Darwin. Because truth is greater than "good" intentions any day. - t4ll3y, on 07/03/2008, -1/+27Invoking rule 34 on Darwin and Lincoln.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -5/+24Darwin of course.
Lincoln was just a politician. His sphere and time of influence was tiny compared to that of Darwin. All the myth and legend that has grown up around Lincoln obscures the fact that he wasn't against slavery at all. (Yeah google it, or better yet look it up in a real history book) He didn't make many important decisions and the fact that he looked weird and was assassinated just adds to the whole aura and mystique surrounding him.
The article is typical pseudo-patriotic garbage that newsweek love to ***** out onto their pages. - Ymeg, on 07/03/2008, -2/+20Only way to find out is a cage match.
- antechinus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+15American parochialism never ceases to amaze me.
- Michiko280, on 07/02/2008, -9/+23DARWIN!!! My god I don't know where we'd be without him.
- TekeeTakShak, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13How can you even compare the two men? One made advances in biological studies and science while the other kept his nation from self-destructing.
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -7/+19Oh geez, we still have people parroting that Ron-Paul "buy all the slaves" solution, huh? First, that "solution" would have to ignore the fact the slavery wasn't really the main reason the war itself was fought (states rights and economic reasons played a bigger role), Even ignoring the the question of why the south, an agrarian based economy would WANT to sell all of what made their work profitable, the costs would be astronomical. At the going rate of $400 dollars a slave, the US would have to spend 1.6 BILLION dollars to purchase all 4 million slaves in 1861, which was more than a third of the GDP of the country in the first place (north AND south). This doesn't even touch onto the moral complications involved...
Why people take economic advice from a former vajayjay doctor is beyond me... - Azerael, on 07/03/2008, -3/+13"Can you imagine the world today with the United States split in two?"
What a fantastic line of thought. You could fight each other instead of the rest of us. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13People seem to forget that Lincoln was perfectly within his constitutional authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, as those quick to criticize him forget the part of the US constitution that states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION or invasion, the public safety may require it."
- whatthefu, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Why do we have to assess who was more important just because they were born at the same time? That's stupid. They were both extremely important in very different ways.
- Lucas123, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11No. In fact, Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery during the aformentioned debate, but he was also raised in a society that thought of blacks as inferior as a matter of scientific fact. Even so, Lincoln was an amazingly progressive man for his time. But it seems that you folks would like to judge him by your today's standards, which doesn't work.
Frederick Douglass, a black abolisishionist supported Lincoln and admired him, as Lincoln admired Douglass.
Here's a Lincoln quote to remember: "Douglass, I hate slavery as much as you do, and I want to see it abolished altogether." A few days later, Douglass wrote the President: "all with whom I have thus far spoken on the subject, concur in the wisdom and benevolence of the idea, and some of them think it is practicable. That every slave who escapes from the Rebel States is a loss to the Rebellion and a gain to the Loyal Cause I need not stop to argue the proposition is self evident. The negro is the stomach of the rebellion."
Historian William Connery put it this way: "In spite of the seeming pro-slavery policy of the Lincoln administration, Douglass was earnestly working in the President's support. He was wise enough to understand that if Lincoln in the beginning, had stated his policy to be, not only to save the Union, but also to free the slaves, all would have been lost. In his speeches Douglass always emphasized "the mission of the war was the liberation of the slaves as well as the salvation of the Union."
Lincoln's thinking evolved over time, but one thing never changed. He didn't agree with slavery, and, if possible, one of his ultimate goals was to abolish it. - iamjboyd, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12ahh yes, the civil war, 600,000 deaths and countless injuries. In a world with a much smaller population.
- parallax7d, on 07/03/2008, -6/+15lincoln - best president
bush - worst president
lincoln - suspended rights in the case of civil war
bush - ignored rights in the case of expanding his own powers
yeah, they were real similar - daveymcwavey, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11Only an American would vote Lincoln. The rest of us KNOW it is Darwin
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9Lincoln entertained the "buy the slaves and ship them to Africa" idea. That idea was unbelievably impractical.
I think the way it slowly worked out was probably the best. Black people today certainly are well off, especially when you compare the typical black American's lifestyle to the typical lifestyle of someone who lives in Liberia. - Lucas123, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9The context of that particular quote was a debate in 1858 between Lincoln and Sen. Stephen Douglas, who Lincoln was challenging for the seat. Douglas was advocating expansion of slavery in the new territories, while Lincoln was opposing it. Lincoln was clearly pandering to the populace. You're taking a single quote out of context and misinterpreting it as his attitude toward blacks in general. By every other action, Lincoln showed he did not think of slaves as the minority of the populace -- slave owners -- did. God help us if we were judged by everything we said, no matter the context.
- pyrotix, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Oh ***** you Internet, ***** you!
- parallax7d, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8what's that word, it better mean "is #1!". USA USA!
- CountBrass, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8No brainer. Outside the US Lincoln is irrelevant.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Best stop taking your flu shots since they are a product of this anti-christian propagandan
- Hetman, on 07/02/2008, -6/+13Pick up a history book please. Technically he did not free any slaves. It was more of a good PR stunt than an actual law freeing every slave.
- LeoGagen, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Lincoln was a politician, therfore a liar, a cheat and an opportunist, unless what politician is has changed over the years..
- reclusiveraider, on 07/02/2008, -3/+10are you kidding?! just look at Darwin's big badass beard! hes even got Lincoln beat in the hair arena.
- tiiptop, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9With all respect to Abraham Lincoln I shall vote for Charles Darwin
- Lucas123, on 07/02/2008, -3/+9"lincoln, by his own words, looked down upon the black race just as harshly as any slave owner." May I get a copy of those words, please? I need to brush up on my revisionism history.
So then I guess that whole Frederick Douglass admiration thing was just a PR stunt.http://americancivilwar.com/colored/frederick_doug ... - inactive, on 07/02/2008, -10/+16Considering that Alfred Russel Wallace was pretty much going to propose the same theory (with some nuances of difference that wouldn't matter in the long run), I'm going to vote for Lincoln, because i'm certain that without his leadership, the Confederate states would have formed their own country and slavery would have lasted for decades longer.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7LOL. *wipes coffee from monitor screen*
- Lucas123, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8Wow. Try to expand your thinking a bit. Now imagine this: It's 150 years ago. Slavery is legal and most people support it. In fact, most science supports white supremacy over blacks. If you advocate that blacks are equal to whites, you don't get elected, and in fact, can't make any change to the current system.
I know that's a stretch for you to imagine, but push back from the Xbox and try it. - neel360, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9While I'm not discrediting the achievements of Darwin (which were undoubtedly incredible), I think it's naive to think that on a global perspective, Lincoln was of little consequence. Can you imagine the world today with the United States split in two? Part of the reason why the United States is as powerful as it is today is because of its vast resources - a great deal of which, including oil and agriculture, are to be found in the South.
- ZenMojo, on 07/03/2008, -4/+10Ah, the usual demonization of Lincoln. Does this guy sound like a racist?
From his letters in 1855, well before he became president:
"How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."
Yeah, horrible excuse for a human being that Abraham Lincoln guy.... - arjie, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7"Who was more important, Darwin or Lincoln?"
What a stupid question! Who compares a UNIX OS with a Ford luxury automobile anyway? - ZenMojo, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Oh, what's this? 1855?
"How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."
It's called tacking to the center in an election year. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Well, to vote Darwin, you have to prove he was the only one who would have noticed and eloquently communicated the process of evolution.
Who knows when suitable replacements might have arrived for either one. If you think about it, the country probably had limited windows of opportunity for a man like Lincoln to come along and acquire a position to affect monumental changes. The window of opportunity for scientific discovery and documentation was probably much longer. Thus you might argue Lincoln.
The sad part is that backward-ass Americans have just in the past few years put Darwin ON TRIAL, again. In Kansas, I believe... - masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7Which country out of all one hundred and some do you think has the greatest effect on the rest of the world? Is that by a longshot? I don't think you understand how great of a change one little thing can make in the future or the US's impact on the world. Think about how different the world situation would be if OBL died twenty years ago. How much of an effect do you think the US has on that situation?
- jpop, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5That's true, who here's really met Darwin? For all we know, he could be faked...
- masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5But actually, I don't think you're stupid. I know you don't believe that. You're either just stubborn, like to argue, really really hate America, or are just all around against what you perceive I am for. My guess is a little of each.
- bosssmiley, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5You utter bastard! :-)
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Yes, but that is the sum costs of the states, right? The south wouldn't have contributed toward the costs anyway. Regardless, the federal government would not have been able to afford it, and even if they had, my primary points still stand regarding slavery's part in the war.
- masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Well, then you absolutely miss-assumed what I'm judging on. If you really think Palestine has a greater impact on the world than the US you're stupid. What happened to the major players of ww2 having the greatest impact on the world, wasn't that YOUR argument? I just don't think you can argue anybody but the US if you factor in every little detail. Brazil and the 02 is laughable. Do you remember why were even arguing about this? Because I said the US has a great impact on the world, even if I were technically wrong about being number one, my original points still stand. The US does have a large impact on the world. If we had a different president that impact would have been different. Darwin's impact doesn't matter because another guy had the same theories at the same time. You diggers always go off into something else arguing some dumb irrelevant thing. Is this on purpose because you know you're wrong if you stay on topic?
I mean how ***** stupid. We're trying to figure out which country has the greatest impact on the world, you list 10 little ***** countries as possibilities, but REFUSE to even CONSIDER the ***** UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! This is insanity. - masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5I mean really, you're going to argue that the trees in Brazil have a greater impact than American foreign policy, the internet, space exploration, nuclear technology, and on and on and on PLUS we still have more trees than them. Remember when I said you're an idiot for arguing solely for the sake of me being wrong, well you just proved it... or you are a GIANT idiot. You see you should be siding with me, than you could get to blame America for all the worlds problems that have and will always exist. I bet you'd love you some logical fallacy like that.
- Dimensio, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5"The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery."
Your statement is fundamentally inaccurate. One motivating factor behind the secession of the Confederate states was a fear of an impending national policy of abolition. It is for this reason that the Confederate constitution explicitly forbids the abolition of slavery.
It is an irony that the act of secession prompted a civil war that, in all likelihood, hastened a national policy of abolition of slavery in the United States. - SpikeLee, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4It's true. Cage matches do work. If they didn't, then everyone would still have to be in the cage.
- Ramble, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Actually it's very important. It's used in every section of biology.
- masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Ohh no, I understand logic quite well. Good enough to know you got nothing and just folded. My question is, do you understand logic well enough to know when saying nothing is better than saying something? Judging by your last post, me thinks not.
- masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5To clarify, swapping the president is dependent on one other person to do the same exact thing, while swapping darwin is counting on one of millions to do the same thing, which was actually happening. I'll let you work out the probabilities for both...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 189 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is