Mycroft Holmes said:
I argued only what I saw and what I could extrapolate. What is your main point then? Any argument without a main thesis or conclusion is just a collection of ramblings and disjointed points.
I have to write in little collections because you can't answer the argument as a whole.
___________________
What do schizophrenic homeless people have to do with anything? Are you going to use anything else than non-sequiturs? We're using the people on the poll. I can be more precise and say that working members of society play an important part.
If you don't like the argument about Pythagoras, then use Claudius Ptolemy or use any other philosopher you want. The point is the same. Whether or not the work of Pythagoras was inspired from the work of other man is pointless. He's the face of a lot of western thought. Pythagoras's life was chronicled centuries after his death so debating whether his work was his own or is pointless.
Losing yourself in the specifics of a situation then trying to apply it to a larger context doesn't work. You take little points and try to twist them whatever into you wish. You disregard or you use opinion to dismiss what you don't like.
Who cares what you think of Pythagoras, his work or other sections of society? Does your approval actually affect their contributions? I could say he contributed more than pharaoh's, but that's turning in circles as mentioned in the random shit argument.
Egypt exists, but it's as much a credit to generations of Egyptians than a Pharaoh who died and got mummified in ages immemorial. All the while the teachings of ancient philosophers are still taught.
"It counters the argument that great generals independently win wars without the decisions of presidents and dictators". It also counters the argument that Leaders can win great wars without good generals. They're co-dependent.
I think I also explained the random shit part to you in the edit. Chaos means that assigning roles in history can be extremely difficult and dangerous if you're not well versed about the situation. Drivers for history are most of the time random events, which I why it irritates me to see you try to fit and twist history into your argument.
But if you want to only talk about the contributions of each section of society. Then give some examples as to why leaders are more important in terms of society, instead of using tangential examples that can be explained away for other reasons or are too ambiguous to be definite.
Here I have an example. Leaders are more important because they order other people around.
EDIT: One possible interpretation I also got from your argument was that leadership was important, which is obvious. Leadership occurs at all levels and is not unique to a class of individuals.