I'm very impressed with Malala Yousafzai. She survives a bullet to the head by barbarians (who are, no doubt, more afraid of her than ever); she addresses the world at the UN, will be the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It's almost like a superhero origin. She is a tremendous inspiration for the rights of girls and women worldwide to have an education, and I can't imagine that her influence won't be felt for decades to come.
Originally posted by Astner
So who in their right mind would consider anyone but themselves to be the most important person in the world?Let me put it like this: I'd be the last person on the planet that I'd have dead.
By that measurement, there are people who would put other people's lifes over their own.
Probably the US President. There isn't anyone nearly as close in terms of funding, a platform from which to influence others, and the system in place to make changes happen. Billionaires have the same kind of money, but not the same ability to enact legislative change, either nationally or internationally. Other major world leaders would be similarly positioned, so they'd be next.
Societally we could point to influential figures like Oprah, Bill Gates, etc. and, collectively, they may have had more importance/influence than any single US President and/or world leader. But my answer is that the office of the President, as a whole, is the most important position in the world.
Originally posted by Astner
"I was wrong," would've sufficed.
Yes, let's derail the thread over a semantic squabble, instead of easily discerning what he meant and answering the question. We're all in awe of your ability to pedantically gain the upper hand in internet arguments.
🙄
Also, there are other uses of important that make perfect sense, not just your egocentric one, if we want to truly be pedantic.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm with Astner on this one. The OP says according to my own definition.In the end, all that matters to you... is you. All that matters to me... is me. Such is the way of things.
So yeah, me. 👆
Lol, ok. But there's still context being ignored. He's asking about politicians, businessmen, etc. We can define what is important differently - scientific discovery, political influence, social change, etc. - but it's clear the OP was talking about cultural relevance. Astner's probably right that riv should have used "influential" instead. But in saying that, he's showing us that he knows what Riv intended, and is deliberately ignoring it for the sake of a smug semantically correct but contextually worthless answer.
Again, no one's stopping you guys from being pedants. But it's contributing very little, and substituting a potential conversation on worldwide influence for "Haha, me."