Who was the most evil person in history? There have been some real corkers in times gone and a rather depressing amount of them share the current timeline with us. Grant us your esteemed opinions concerning this most significance-accumulatingly important of all topics.
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Heres my top 3 in not particular order, I have found a brief overview on them, it may help explain why they are my top 3:
-Ivan IV of Russia:
"Ivan IV of Russia, also know as Ivan the Terrible, was the Grand Duke of Muscovy from 1533 to 1547 and was the first ruler of Russia to assume the title of Tsar. In 1570, Ivan was under the belief that the elite of the city of Novgorod planned to defect to Poland, and led an army to stop them on January 2. Ivan’s soldiers built walls around the perimeter of the city in order to prevent the people of the city escaping. Between 500 and 1000 people were gathered every day by the troops, then tortured and killed in front of Ivan and his son. In 1581, Ivan beat his pregnant daughter-in-law for wearing immodest clothing, causing a miscarriage. His son, also named Ivan, upon learning of this, engaged in a heated argument with his father, which resulted in Ivan striking his son in the head with his pointed staff, causing his son’s (accidental) death."
-Emperor Hirohito of Japan:
"Hirohito was the Emporer of Japan from 1926 to 1989. In 1937, Japanese troops committed the war crime that is now known as the Rape of Nanking (the then Capital of China, now known as Nanjing). The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although the violence lasted well into the next six weeks, until early February 1938. During the occupation of Nanjing, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. A large number of women and children were also killed, as rape and murder became more widespread. The death toll is generally considered to be between 150,000 and 300,000."
-Josef Stalin:
"Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953. Under Stalin’s leadership, the Ukraine suffered from a famine (Holodomor) so great it is considered by many to be an act of genocide on the part of Stalin’s government. Estimates of the number of deaths range from 2.5 million to 10 million. The famine was caused by direct political and administrative decisions. In addition to the famine, Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state. In total, estimates of the total number murdered under Stalins reign, range from 10 million to 60 million."
% of evil Pol Pot: wiped out 1/4 of the population of
Cambodia.
Evil by the Numbers: Chairman Mao: 50MM to 100MM
(no one is really sure)
Evil as a fashion statement: Dark Helmet
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mattlov wrote:Jesus.
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Anybody who has cut another person's head off with a knife whilst they're still alive, broadcasting it live on the internet, jumps to the top of my list.
Flashman wrote:Anybody who has cut another person's head off with a knife whilst they're still alive, broadcasting it live on the internet, jumps to the top of my list.
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Well by that logic, Mohammad is WAY more evil then Jesus. Im pretty sure it wasnt his intentions to cause all that, the guy was normally a pretty peaceful guy.
I think Hilter is a shoe in for most evil guy.....but thats almost to easy. Nero? That guy did some nasties. Henry the Eighth? I mean, he REALLY loved women
True Evil is subjective.
Fictional evil is more clearly defined......or is it.
Take for example the story of The Wizard of OZ....
Through a complex means involving a tornado and a house, Dorothy kills one "Wicked Witch of the East." The dead witch's sister, the so called "Wicked Witch of the West," arrives shortly after to claim the only portion of her sister left whole, the infamous Ruby Slippers. At this point, Glenda the "Good Witch of the North" arrives to contest the WWotW's claim on the shoes. Glenda trumps the WWotW by magically placing the shoes on Dorothy.
Glenda then sets Dorothy, a young girl unfamilier with OZ politics, on a path to the "Wizard of OZ".
Many adventures follow as Dorothy accumulates a few companions and attempts to avoid the WWotW.
To cut to the end... Dorothy Kills the WWotW by dousing her with water, her only known weakness. She then Debunks the Wizard as a fraud.
ONLY then does Glenda appear and tell dorothy how to use the Ruby Slippers to return to her real home in Kansas. Where she appears (in some versions) without the magic shoes.
Leaving Glenda as the only being in all of OZ with any magical powers and the Ruby Slippers>
Now... Who was the REAL evil witch?
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Why? He brought the world the "Brady Bunch" in All it's various and sundry incarnations.
Note: He currently has a redo of Gilligan's Island in the works.
He is listed as the Composer of the 2 most invasive Theme songs ever.... songs that will get stuck in your head (if you have ever heard them) just by reading the first few words...
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Trollish...
Im an atheist, but you would find it hard to back that up in any sensible way.
Just because people started being idiotic after he died, doesnt mean you can blame him personally. While some scholars debate if he actually existed at all, there is little evidence to suggest he was a bad person himself.
Indeed, i find it ironic that Jesus apparently was a nice guy who talked about healing the sick and loving your fellow man, while Republican Bible belt Americans seem to hate the idea of universal healthcare and giving gay people their civil rights.
A lot of it depends upon the time period, the standards of the culture they were from and the circumstances surrounding the events. What Vlad the impaler did was cetainly barbaric but not all that uncommon for his time.
For me mass murderers/war criminals are an obvious choice but are they any more or less evil than the subordinates who carried out thier orders?
Really it is an impossible question to answer effectively as it cant be based upon a simple count of how many people died and in which way. Also it is worth thinking about where their intentions evil? I am fairly sure that Hitler believed he was doing the right and good thing by trying to exterminate the Jews, if he had not lost the war is it possible that after a significant period of time people would have accepted this?
My vote would have to go with someone like Myra Hindley
squilverine wrote:Really it is an impossible question to answer effectively as it cant be based upon a simple count of how many people died and in which way. Also it is worth thinking about where their intentions evil? I am fairly sure that Hitler believed he was doing the right and good thing by trying to exterminate the Jews, if he had not lost the war is it possible that after a significant period of time people would have accepted this?
My vote would have to go with someone like Myra Hindley
Myra Hindley more evil than Hitler? You heard it here first!
Re: Jesus. Surely God's a better choice for this argument. He created the devil and therefore all evil. Some people like to let him off because he also created all the good things. Of course if he's beyond time and space then he can't be 'in history' (at least not exclusively) so we'll have to discount him.
Albatross wrote:Hindley? She was a pawn. Now Brady, on the other hand... I would quite cheerfully pull that man's fingernails out with a pair of pliers.
Yeah, but how much was he personally involved? Don't get me wrong, people like Hitler, Pinochet, Milosevic, Stalin, Mao etc. are all undeniably evil - but how much evil does it take to sign an order condemning thousands to their deaths, as opposed to say, a person raping and murdering their own children? 'Cause that's pretty fething evil in my book.
Seriously though,I'm inclined to agree with Alby,evil when it's applied to Hitler,Stallin,Mao etc (while undeniable evil) is an almost "disattached/political" evil...while someone who could murder their own children,IMO,would be much more evil.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before but how about Elizabeth Báthory who After her husband's death, she and four collaborators were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls and young women, with one witness
attributing to them over 600 victims, though the number for which they were convicted was 80. Elizabeth herself was neither tried nor convicted. In 1610, however, she was imprisoned in the Csejte Castle, where she remained bricked in a
you could always throw in 'Ima kick your baby!', which was in something sexiest_hero posted, and is a contender for 'funniest thing I've heard on Dakka'.
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Not only is this unclassy, it's also factually incorrect concerning the scope and extremity of violence! Great job!
Pipboy101 wrote:The TV producer that came up with Reality TV. There should be a special kind of hell for that person.
Hmm... The first "reality TV" type show was, I believe, Allen Funt's Candid Camera in the early 50s. IIRC the "modern' style was debuted in the late 80 when a TV writers strike kinda killed scripted tv shows. I think it was COPS.
Ahhh Ive heard of them. I remember only because the both of them tortured the girls. I think I saw that on a show about serial killers once. Yea, thats messed up any way you slice it. Murder and torture shouldnt be family time.
I think as far as serial killers go though, Dennis Rader (BTK) would rank pretty high on that list. Sure there are murderers that took more lives, but he really got off on it, and the way he taunted the police and such is what I think raises his evil guy number
]I don’t think totalling body counts really works, as there is a massive difference between bad, ideologically driven agricultural policy and gassing ethnic minorities by the train load. It would mean Victorian England and the millions of deaths by famine they caused in India would move ahead of Pol Pot’s Cambodia, which would be a ludicrous result.
I also think it’s best to separate ultra-sadism on the personal scale from murderous governments. Evil is impossible to objectively measure at the best of times, and the motivations of serial killers and tyrants are so different I don’t think there’s much value in comparing them.
In terms of most evil government my vote goes to Pol Pot’s Cambodia. What went on there is simply horrific.
In terms of the most evil individual I’d pick HH Holmes, the Murder Castle pushes all my squick buttons in the worst possible ways.
garret wrote:whoever created MTV. therefore starting a trend to rob america of real music instead we get pre packeged Dribble. Not what sells but what we want,
Yeah! Because before MTV music was pure and not commercial at all.
helgrenze wrote:
Pipboy101 wrote:The TV producer that came up with Reality TV. There should be a special kind of hell for that person.
Hmm... The first "reality TV" type show was, I believe, Allen Funt's Candid Camera in the early 50s. IIRC the "modern' style was debuted in the late 80 when a TV writers strike kinda killed scripted tv shows. I think it was COPS.
The particular change in the last decade has been the move to event style reality television – building hype around a reality show. Big Brother and Survivor are the classic examples, there is all this hype over whatever thing that happens that’s meant to be shocking, and a week later no-one cares.
I’m not really bothered by it, they used to make a lot more crap sitcoms that no-one should watch, now they make crap reality shows that no-one should watch. It isn’t as though we’ve lost good TV – I’d argue there’s more good tv available now than there’s ever been.
sebster wrote:]I don’t think totalling body counts really works, as there is a massive difference between bad, ideologically driven agricultural policy and gassing ethnic minorities by the train load. It would mean Victorian England and the millions of deaths by famine they caused in India would move ahead of Pol Pot’s Cambodia, which would be a ludicrous result.
I also think it’s best to separate ultra-sadism on the personal scale from murderous governments. Evil is impossible to objectively measure at the best of times, and the motivations of serial killers and tyrants are so different I don’t think there’s much value in comparing them.
In terms of most evil government my vote goes to Pol Pot’s Cambodia. What went on there is simply horrific.
In terms of the most evil individual I’d pick HH Holmes, the Murder Castle pushes all my squick buttons in the worst possible ways.
I actually agree here.... But you also have to factor in the messianic agendas of Jim Jones and Charles manson. These two convinced other people to kill for them. In equally horrific ways. Jones further convinced almost 1000 people to commit suicide, though most probably didn't realize that was the intent.
dogma wrote:I wrote my first research paper on Pol Pot's Cambodia. That got a visit from the school psychiatrist.
With good reason
I got depressed enough writing about Palestinian refugees in Jordan that I switched to straight accounting/finance. Well, and econometrics hurt my head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote:I actually agree here.... But you also have to factor in the messianic agendas of Jim Jones and Charles manson. These two convinced other people to kill for them. In equally horrific ways. Jones further convinced almost 1000 people to commit suicide, though most probably didn't realize that was the intent.
Yeah, it gets complicated. It isn't that bodycount doesn't matter at all, but it's a measure that only goes so far, or something like that.
I mean, you focus entirely on bodycount and history's greatest monsters are the people with bad agricultural policy. You ignore it entirely and you have a list that ignores how many people were killed. Both are bad results, so you have to end up with something in between.
Studying (in part) Pol Pot's regime in the aftermath of Vietnam. Pretty much agree with the label of evilest 'government' ever.
When it comes to people, it's a little bit harder. I'm leaning towards agreeing with Albatross.
Hitler was a light weight. Sure he had a system and was very precise about it but in terms of pure numbers or percentages he was a lightweight compared to these guys. They took mass murder to stunning new levels. Now there are certainly people who are more evil on a personal level, who have done horrific things to their fellow man, but those guys institutionalized suffering and death.
For a diety Jesus was pretty laid back. "Believe in me and accept me as your only god. Don't be a dick. Tell other's about me."
Hitler was a light weight. Sure he had a system and was very precise about it but in terms of pure numbers or percentages he was a lightweight compared to these guys. They took mass murder to stunning new levels. Now there are certainly people who are more evil on a personal level, who have done horrific things to their fellow man, but those guys institutionalized suffering and death.
That's a pretty odd interpretation of events, what sources are you using?
While Mao's total is at minimum 40 million, most of the deaths came under the (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) Great Leap Forward. If Mao becomes a monster for those deaths, then the British Empire becomes the second most murderous goverment of all time with the 20 million they killed in India with their (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) free market plans. As I said earlier, if you just consider body counts, then histories greatest monsters becomes a list of people responsible for bad agricultural policy.
I'm no fan of Mao, but to consider his rule to have a greater level of institutionalised suffering and death is only possible when you have little to no idea about at least one of the two regimes.
Hitler was a light weight. Sure he had a system and was very precise about it but in terms of pure numbers or percentages he was a lightweight compared to these guys. They took mass murder to stunning new levels. Now there are certainly people who are more evil on a personal level, who have done horrific things to their fellow man, but those guys institutionalized suffering and death.
For a diety Jesus was pretty laid back. "Believe in me and accept me as your only god. Don't be a dick. Tell other's about me."
I second this, I really don't consider hitler when I think mass murder, there were others who were so much worse.... and the big 3 have already been named above
on a less serious note
-Justin Bieber-an abomination to mankind......
His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.
One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.
Well by that logic, Mohammad is WAY more evil then Jesus. Im pretty sure it wasnt his intentions to cause all that, the guy was normally a pretty peaceful guy.
Evil in religion is not absolutely the fault of it's leaders or figureheads - suggesting that the individual who caused such atrocities in the name of their god is less to blame than a prophet who was by all reports mostly peaceful in life is kind of misguided. Brainwashed, stupid, or self-inspired genius, evil is evil.
By the bye, 'by that logic', they're about the same in historical terms. The key phrase is 'in history'.
Huffy wrote:I second this, I really don't consider hitler when I think mass murder, there were others who were so much worse.... and the big 3 have already been named above
"While Mao's total is at minimum 40 million, most of the deaths came under the (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) Great Leap Forward. If Mao becomes a monster for those deaths, then the British Empire becomes the second most murderous goverment of all time with the 20 million they killed in India with their (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) free market plans. As I said earlier, if you just consider body counts, then histories greatest monsters becomes a list of people responsible for bad agricultural policy.
I'm no fan of Mao, but to consider his rule to have a greater level of institutionalised suffering and death is only possible when you have little to no idea about at least one of the two regimes."
I think when you think about who is the most evil, you have to take the sadistic intentions behind their actions, rather than the deathcount. With this in mind, my top 5 would be:
5) Charles Manson
4) Ruhollah Khomeini
3) Adolf Hitler
2) Ivan the Terrible
1) Vlad the Impaler
That Elizabeth chick was pretty bad, I think she was way more sadistic that hitler or even Ivan the Terrible, they were both doing what they thought was best for their nations. Incidentally, happy birthday Hitler, hope the Pineapple is a special big size today!
Actually, I wouldn't even put Hitler up there Darth Bob. After all, despite his obvious enough anti-semitism, he wasn't the one to come up with the idea of the "Final Solution". (I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar. An alternative to the Death Camps at least. )
Also, I would disagree with Mao, and maybe even the branding of Stalin. Both leaders did push thier somewhat backwards and somewhat gakky countries into the modern era. You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I wouldn't even put Hitler up there Darth Bob. After all, despite his obvious enough anti-semitism, he wasn't the one to come up with the idea of the "Final Solution". (I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar. An alternative to the Death Camps at least. )
Also, I would disagree with Mao, and maybe even the branding of Stalin. Both leaders did push thier somewhat backwards and somewhat gakky countries into the modern era. You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.
Your ability to excuse crimes against humanity is most impressive.
Mattlov is a perfect example of why the ignore button is filled with so much awesomeness. I recomend the rest of you put him on ignore that way I don't have to read that mess when you quote him.
We really can't answer the question of the single most evil person in history becuase we only have records of a few that we know of. And people also define evil differently.
So we are left with lists of potential candidates.
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Ivan the terrible
Caligula
Herod
Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander the VI)
Robespierre
Alistar Crowley
Certain Conquistadors
Also the american Indians may consider Andrew Jackson as "the most evil person in history"
Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I wouldn't even put Hitler up there Darth Bob. After all, despite his obvious enough anti-semitism, he wasn't the one to come up with the idea of the "Final Solution". (I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar. An alternative to the Death Camps at least. )
I'm not sure how well 'we wanted to ship them to Madagascar but then we ended up at war with Britain so they didn't work and all we could think of execution camps' would have worked at the Nuremberg trials, personally.
Also, I would disagree with Mao, and maybe even the branding of Stalin. Both leaders did push thier somewhat backwards and somewhat gakky countries into the modern era. You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.
While both men can be given credit for modernisation, I think it's a mistake to assume the harm they did was a necessary part of that. I'd argue their excesses (and by excesses I mean forced labour camps and execution of political prisoners) harmed progress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:Robespierre
Hey! I like Robespierre. Sure, he was monster that oversaw the execution of thousands, but you'd be hardpressed to think of a more classic case of irony than the downfall of Robespierre. What's the loss of some Frenchmen when there's irony to be had?
I would take Saddam off the list of evil, he was trained and inserted into his poisiton of national power by the U.S. gov't and when he refused to play ball with big american coorporations he became the target of propaganda in the United States and abroad.
When Iraq tried to steal oil from kuwait, the United States ran in trumpets blazing and smacked him around, but didn't deal a deathblow and essentially warned him that if he doesnt play nice they would come and get him. shortly after the turn of the millenium when Iraq changed from the US dollar to the Euro (which resulted in huge net gains for Iraq, and losses for the US) the US began to seed misinformation about the development of "WMDs" and "harboring terrorists" both of which were lies to justify removing saddam from power. Even the current war is just to keep the country destabilized to ensure that coorporations can capitalize on the oil fields.
Saddam was trying to make a more independant Iraq that was free from U.S. control, and U.S. propaganda painted him as the absolute evil in this world, while simultaneously voting in the United Nations to give awards to the communist regime in china (who were mass murdering specific religious groups behind closed doors) for being so progressive with their expansion and economic freedom (they let american companies get away with just about anything they want)
Demogerg wrote:I would take Saddam off the list of evil, he was trained and inserted into his poisiton of national power by the U.S. gov't and when he refused to play ball with big american coorporations he became the target of propaganda in the United States and abroad.
When Iraq tried to steal oil from kuwait, the United States ran in trumpets blazing and smacked him around, but didn't deal a deathblow and essentially warned him that if he doesnt play nice they would come and get him. shortly after the turn of the millenium when Iraq changed from the US dollar to the Euro (which resulted in huge net gains for Iraq, and losses for the US) the US began to seed misinformation about the development of "WMDs" and "harboring terrorists" both of which were lies to justify removing saddam from power. Even the current war is just to keep the country destabilized to ensure that coorporations can capitalize on the oil fields.
Saddam was trying to make a more independant Iraq that was free from U.S. control, and U.S. propaganda painted him as the absolute evil in this world, while simultaneously voting in the United Nations to give awards to the communist regime in china (who were mass murdering specific religious groups behind closed doors) for being so progressive with their expansion and economic freedom (they let american companies get away with just about anything they want)
TLDR: Saddam was not necesarily evil
The apologism in this thread is EPIC. EPIC FAIL that is. The rantiness of this particular post just screams Black Helicopter.
Do woodchippers ring a bell? Gassing Kurds? He may not be top 10, but Evil, yep and in a big way.
Frazzled wrote:Do woodchippers ring a bell? Gassing Kurds? He may not be top 10, but Evil, yep and in a big way.
The woodchipper thing is almost certainly a myth, along with a lot of other stories his evil has been exaggerated for US political purposes, but it would be a mistake to that therefore there was no evil at all.
But that doesn't mean there was no evil at all - the man killed a lot of people to maintain his powerbase. However, that basically puts him on level footing with dozens of other twentieth century dictators, and given we're talking about the most evil men of all time then unless the list of most evil is set to grow into the hundreds I can't see Saddam making it.
Oh, and Demogerg, while the Iraq wars were both fought for reasons other than those given, it's a lot more complicated than what you've posted, and none of it was about a change in currencies.
Frazzled wrote:Do woodchippers ring a bell? Gassing Kurds? He may not be top 10, but Evil, yep and in a big way.
The woodchipper thing is almost certainly a myth, along with a lot of other stories his evil has been exaggerated for US political purposes, but it would be a mistake to that therefore there was no evil at all.
But that doesn't mean there was no evil at all - the man killed a lot of people to maintain his powerbase. However, that basically puts him on level footing with dozens of other twentieth century dictators, and unless the list of most evil is set to grow into the hundreds I can't see Saddam making the list.
Oh, and Demogerg, while the Iraq wars were both fought for reasons other than those given, it's a lot more complicated than what you've posted, and none of it was about a change in currencies.
As noted, I said EVIL, not top evil. An agreed that puts him in footing of dozens of other dictators in the 20th century. The 20th Century reeked in that regard (but was probably better than the 19th or 18th and so forth).
I would hesitate to call Hitler evil. He was a traumatised man, who wanted to do the best for his country & people. He wanted the Jews out - he didn't neccesarily want to kill them. He waged a power-hungry, confident and aggressive war against inferior odds, tried to expand Germany's borders. Nothing that special - we had being doing that for hundreds of years. It's just that the industrialisation of war in this period makes it seem so much more horrific, and because it's so recent. If we had our contemporary opinions, and, say looked back to previous centuries, would Oliver Cromwell and the Crusader Kings not be similarly evil?
If you want to extrapolate xenophobic and anti-semitic people as evil, look at the rest of western society during this period. Churchill was a fervent anti-semite, Roosevelt's government did nothing to shift the old anti-semitic upper-class that existed in the USA. France, even, wasn't very fond of Jews.
And Frazz, we're trying to think outside of the box. Saddam, Hitler, Stalin and Mao are boring.
I think we need to see a return to the times of giving people great titles, such as the obvious Alexander the Great, but also Vlad the Impaler and Ivan the Terrible... It just makes things so much easier.
There would be Hitler the Terrible/Horrible/spanker, Saddam the Possibly Evil, Oprah the Corpulent, Nixon the Idiosyncratic...
There's no such thing as evil. It's just your opinion on what they have done, or do. Stop throwing evil around like it's fact. =P
'Evil people' are usually just enemies of the western world. I'm surprised Osama Bin Laden hasn't popped up yet, even though there still isn't any solid proof that he did anything.
smiling Assassin wrote:He wanted the Jews out - he didn't neccesarily want to kill them
Are you trying to suggest the holocaust was some tragic error in which Hitler had no knowing part?
There's a disturbing amount of Hitler love in this thread.
No, it was something he authorised when he got desperate to follow up on the policies he had promised. He authorised it, and in a contemporary sense he was negligent for the things that went on in the camps.
[Mushed up sentence..]
No apologism, no mercy. He led a fanatical and insane following, he was not an evil man.
Something he authorized? You just admitted he authorized the murder of millions of people. Thats er "the murder of 6,000,000 Jews."
This thread scares me now. Yea though i walki through the valley of the shadow of the most evil person in history thread I shall have no fear. My EPIC FAIL pic, it comforts me. My Oh No You Didn't blurb, it leadeth me to the path of righteousness. I will fear no reply.
smiling Assassin wrote:He wanted the Jews out - he didn't neccesarily want to kill them
Are you trying to suggest the holocaust was some tragic error in which Hitler had no knowing part?
There's a disturbing amount of Hitler love in this thread.
No, it was something he authorised when he got desperate to follow up on the policies he had promised. He authorised it, and in a contemporary sense he was negligent for the things that went on in the camps.
I wouldn't call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews though.
No apologism, no mercy. He led a fanatical and insane following, he was not an evil man.
sA
He was evil, and he was also damn smart. No way he would have made germany the powerhouse it was in only 2 decades if he wasn't.
Also... have you ever heard one of his speeches? He says to DESTROY them, he wasn't walking around the issue like you are suggesting.
Soladrin wrote:He was evil, and he was also damn smart. No way he would have made germany the powerhouse it was in only 2 decades if he wasn't.
Also... have you ever heard one of his speeches? He says to DESTROY them, he wasn't walking around the issue like you are suggesting.
100% fair point.
However Nazi policy never followed a path of elimination on a mass scale until ~1941.
Not trying to turn this away from the topic, but it was easy to make 4 out of the 2's of Jews and Communism, and that was a widely accepted strategy during this period. (Churchill called for the international elimination of Bolshevism and linked it to the Jews in the same breath)
In this way he could gain a lot of support from the right-wing leanings of the country (which he needed) by linking his hate of Communism to something they could direct themselves against, the Communists having been backed thoroughly into a corner in the German political scene by the time that Hitler came to power. He marked the Jewish 'world domination' conspiracy plot (widely thought about in the USA and the UK at this time in high circles) to Bolshevism.
And Frazz: I got my words mixed up. I would call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews, I would not call him an evil man.
Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Well, i think he looked quite ridiculous in his madness during those speeches. However, i quite doubt i would've found it the same if i were actually there, with SD's motherful watch on me
And as for the ones saying his guilt is not fully his, he WAS the leader, he WAS the Reichsfuhrer, HE was the one millions were looking up to, not Himmler, not Heydrich, not Goebbels. One word from him and any one of them would've been silently suppressed.Well, i think he looked quite ridiculous in his madness during those speeches. However, i quite doubt i would've found it the same if i were actually there, with SD's motherful watch on me
And as for the ones saying his guilt is not fully his, he WAS the leader, he WAS the Reichsfuhrer, HE was the one millions were looking up to, not Himmler, not Heydrich, not Goebbels. One word from him and any one of them would've been silently suppressed.
As for the ones saying he didn't know about it, i'd say you have to be literally blind or have an army of David Blaines to hide the slaughter of millions away from you. He didn't know about Auschwitz, Dachau or Treblinka? What did he think those were, holiday locations?
Oh, and i find Stalin to be quite worse. But the irony is, were the Soviet Union to lose the war, it would've been Stalin put to the wall and judged for his crimes. He was only judged morally and mostly post-mortem
And i'm not even mentioning Mao, Pol Pot, and others. They're not worthy of me saying their names Heil Tizz!
smiling Assassin wrote:[
And Frazz: I got my words mixed up. I would call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews, I would not call him an evil man.
This...is...wo
Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.
sA
They can still be evil. Al Qaeda thinks they have God literally on their side. The cut people's heads off.
Evil- 5 dictionary results
e·vil /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled[ee-vuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6.that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10.anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12.a disease, as king's evil.
Hitler = Evil
Crusaders that slaughtered innnocents = Evil
smiling Assassin wrote:[ And Frazz: I got my words mixed up. I would call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews, I would not call him an evil man.
This...is...wo
Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.
sA
They can still be evil. Al Qaeda thinks they have God literally on their side. The cut people's heads off.
No, what is the intent behind these things? We run by different definitions of the word evil. We have to accept that. Actually this is interesting..
Just as one man's yadda yadda yadda yadda.. We have different opinions on what classifies somebody as evil as opposed to stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible in the highest degree.
I call Charles Manson, the Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Huntley etc. "evil."
PS. I don't care what the dictionary says. Word have meaning because of what they are used for. It does say "intention" in that list.
smiling Assassin wrote:[
And Frazz: I got my words mixed up. I would call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews, I would not call him an evil man.
This...is...wo
Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.
sA
They can still be evil. Al Qaeda thinks they have God literally on their side. The cut people's heads off.
No, what is the intent behind these things? We run by different definitions of the word evil. We have to accept that. Actually this is interesting..
Just as one man's yadda yadda yadda yadda.. We have different opinions on what classifies somebody as evil as opposed to stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible in the highest degree.
I call Charles Manson, the Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Huntley etc. "evil."
PS. I don't care what the dictionary says. Word have meaning because of what they are used for. It does say "intention" in that list.
Intention of serial killers to rape, murder and mutilate because of insane fantasies and bloodthirsty..ness, I think is evil.
People who slaughter millions to try and better their country and their civilisation, I don't see as 'evil'. I see it as ignorant, despicable, ridiculous, and horrifying. Not root-down plain bloodthirsty evil.
Frazzled wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Joseph Stalin.
See, he was a nice guy! I bet he had a Kitten. Called Olga, who was the runt of the litter and he nursed it back to health and loved it as if it were his own flesh and blood.
Frazzled wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Joseph Stalin.
See, he was a nice guy! I bet he had a Kitten. Called Olga, who was the runt of the litter and he nursed it back to health and loved it as if it were his own flesh and blood.
Well he did put all those people into the Gulag death camps because he had the best intentions.
Frazzled wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Joseph Stalin.
See, he was a nice guy! I bet he had a Kitten. Called Olga, who was the runt of the litter and he nursed it back to health and loved it as if it were his own flesh and blood.
Well he did put all those people into the Gulag death camps because he had the best intentions.
I bet they all made fun of Olga for being so small and tiny, which made the poor kitten cry.
Frazzled wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Joseph Stalin.
See, he was a nice guy! I bet he had a Kitten. Called Olga, who was the runt of the litter and he nursed it back to health and loved it as if it were his own flesh and blood.
Well he did put all those people into the Gulag death camps because he had the best intentions.
I bet they all made fun of Olga for being so small and tiny, which made the poor kitten cry.
Yes it was all Olga the Cat's fault. We should have known. Here she is as kitty. We should have known.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before but how about Elizabeth Báthory who After her husband's death, she and four collaborators were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls and young women, with one witness
attributing to them over 600 victims, though the number for which they were convicted was 80. Elizabeth herself was neither tried nor convicted. In 1610, however, she was imprisoned in the Csejte Castle, where she remained bricked in a
+1. I wanted to go through the thread and see if anybody through this up. Crazy stuff. All the "dictators" take a second fiddle IMO because it becomes a institution of death rather than one person being truly evil. Bathing in the blood of your virgin subjects... nasty and twisted.
Intention of serial killers to rape, murder and mutilate because of insane fantasies and bloodthirsty..ness, I think is evil.
People who slaughter millions to try and better their country and their civilisation, I don't see as 'evil'. I see it as ignorant, despicable, ridiculous, and horrifying. Not root-down plain bloodthirsty evil.
sA
So.. the only difference between the two is that you give serial killers the evil label...?
Smiling Assassin wrote: Nazi policy never followed a path of elimination on a mass scale until ~1941.
Not trying to turn this away from the topic, but it was easy to make 4 out of the 2's of Jews and Communism, and that was a widely accepted strategy during this period. (Churchill called for the international elimination of Bolshevism and linked it to the Jews in the same breath)
In this way he could gain a lot of support from the right-wing leanings of the country (which he needed) by linking his hate of Communism to something they could direct themselves against, the Communists having been backed thoroughly into a corner in the German political scene by the time that Hitler came to power. He marked the Jewish 'world domination' conspiracy plot (widely thought about in the USA and the UK at this time in high circles) to Bolshevism.
Yes, he wasn't the first to come up with the notion of 'International Jewry' and many of the early Bolshevik leaders were indeed Jewish but that's not what gives him his infamous position is it? If it were he'd be on a par with say Henry Ford. His legacy is (along with the war) the death camps which killed 11 million people (6 million is the number of Jews killed in the camps) intentionally, not negligently, through forced labour and deliberate extermination.
What's a mass scale in your book? Enough to require a dedicated camp? Dachau opened in 1933.
This is evil to me. Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) is merely insane.
I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up. Latent Cold War brainwashing is my guess. Sheer ignorance could also be the reason. They aren't mutually exclusive explanations, however.
How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history? Try reading Philp Short's biography (for balance) or even Jung Chang's awful book (for scathing, ahistorical criticism). Short's book is a good enough starting point, I think.
Manchu wrote:How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history? Try reading Philp Short's biography (for balance) or even Jung Chang's awful book (for scathing, ahistorical criticism). Short's book is a good enough starting point, I think.
I don't even know what it is you're contesting. Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived? Do you not think this is sufficient to make him the most evil person in history? I'm not going to go to the fething library and read two biographies on Chairman Mao's life when you can't even be bothered to type out what it is you're trying to say.
Manchu wrote:How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history? Try reading Philp Short's biography (for balance) or even Jung Chang's awful book (for scathing, ahistorical criticism). Short's book is a good enough starting point, I think.
I don't even know what it is you're contesting. Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived? Do you not think this is sufficient to make him the most evil person in history? I'm not going to go to the fething library and read two biographies on Chairman Mao's life when you can't even be bothered to type out what it is you're trying to say.
Oh I thought this was quite clear.
I posted that I didn't understand why people in this thread consider Mao evil.
You replied that he caused the deaths of more people than any other person. (Not assuming that you say he is evil, just that this is why you think other people think so.)
I responded to the effect of Mao causing so many deaths is not merely an oversimplification but actually a misunderstanding.
So clearly, I object to the ideas that (1) Mao is evil and (2) Mao caused so many deaths.
But in responding to you more particularly, after you asked that your mistake be corrected, I was objecting particularly to the idea that Mao caused so many deaths.
Could you tell me what wasn't clear about any of that?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived?
I think the point is the level of Mao's direct involvement is debatable. I mean, one could make the argument that Gavrilo Princip is responsible for the deaths of millions of people...
...was that his intention? 'No', is the short answer.
I posted that I didn't understand why people in this thread consider Mao evil.
You replied that he caused the deaths of more people than any other person. (Not assuming that you say he is evil, just that this is why you think other people think so
I responded to the effect of Mao causing so many deaths is not merely an oversimplification but actually a misunderstanding..)
This would have been good to mention. For all I knew you were declaring that I misunderstood the concept of evil.
In that case, do you reject the idea that under Mao approximately 30-40 million people died (or whatever number puts him above Stalin, presumably)? Or do you simply think he wasn't to blame for many of the deaths that happened at the time?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:I think the point is the level of Mao's direct involvement is debatable. I mean, one could make the argument that Gavrilo Princip is responsible for the deaths of millions of people...
...was that his intention? 'No', is the short answer.
'Probably not' is the slightly longer one.
I don't think it can be argued that Mao intended to kill as many as Stalin. Probably not as many Hitler.
As I see it though, there is still a significant gap in between having tried to do something and having made a mistake that can be merely dismiss as such.
It's the difference between murder and excusable homicide. There is still manslaughter.
Then be impertinent with yourself rather than me as it was your misunderstanding rather than my misrepresentation.
This would have been good to mention. For all I knew you were declaring that I misunderstood the concept of evil.
This is silly. You can reread the posts and understand how this would be jumping to conclusions not supported by my posts for yourself.
In that case, do you reject the idea that under Mao approximately 30-40 million people died? Or do you simply think he wasn't to blame for many of the deaths that happened at the time?
And this is the conversation that I wanted to avoid. The number of people who died during the Great Leap Forward is approximately 30 million. No objection. Understanding to what extent, or in what sense, Mao is responsible for this is something that requires quite a lot of context. In my view, he did not "cause" these deaths any more than George W. Bush "caused" the current global financial crisis. (To be clear, Bush did NOT cause it and I'm not going to get into that argument with anyone, either.) In any case, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese history knows that the point of the Great Leap Forward was NOT to kill people--unlike the Holocaust, although Mao is on a lot of "evil lists" behind and even sometimes above Hitler.
Then be impertinent with yourself rather than me as it was your misunderstanding rather than my misrepresentation.
This would have been good to mention. For all I knew you were declaring that I misunderstood the concept of evil.
This is silly. You can reread the posts and understand how this would be jumping to conclusions not supported by my posts for yourself.
Your posts consisted of "I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up. Latent Cold War brainwashing is my guess. Sheer ignorance could also be the reason. They aren't mutually exclusive explanations, however.", "There is a thin line between oversimplification and misunderstanding. But it's not so thin that I didn't notice how far you just crossed it.", and "How about suggesting some reading instead, as I have neither the desire nor the capacity to post an introductory course on twentieth-century Chinese history?"
None of these are making any attempt to state what it is your problem is. It's just you being - frankly - kind of pissy and self-aggrandizing. Also, I wasn't willing to jump to any conclusions, that's why I was asking for clarification as to what you were saying. Seriously, what is your problem? You've been nothing but hostile.
In that case, do you reject the idea that under Mao approximately 30-40 million people died? Or do you simply think he wasn't to blame for many of the deaths that happened at the time?
And this is the conversation that I wanted to avoid. The number of people who died during the Great Leap Forward is approximately 30 million. No objection. Understanding to what extent, or in what sense, Mao is responsible for this is something that requires quite a lot of context. In my view, he did not "cause" these deaths any more than George W. Bush "caused" the current global financial crisis. (To be clear, Bush did NOT cause it and I'm not going to get into that argument with anyone, either.)
If you wanted to avoid a conversation about Chairman Mao's responsibility for the deaths during the Great Leap Forward why did you decide to call people who considered The Great Leap Forward his responsibility brainwashed idiots?
There are many, many historians who blame Mao for the deaths incurred during the Great Leap Forward. The forced abolishment of private plots of land, The Great Sparrow Campaign, exporting grain during famine to maintain national image, refusing the help of engineers in the construction of irrigation equipment, the pig iron fiasco; there was a lot on his hands. There were moderates in the party opposing the extent to which Mao pursued his policies, but he largely ignored them. He was obviously screwed over by his subordinates making up numbers, but he was mostly responsible for having set up the system that led to such a breakdown of information. I would call him negligent. Too blinded by pride and ideology to fulfil the responsbilities he had forcibly assumed.
In any case, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese history knows that the point of the Great Leap Forward was NOT to kill people--unlike the Holocaust, although Mao is on a lot of "evil lists" behind and even sometimes above Hitler.
Agreed. (Although Stalin did engineer famines to kill people, according to many sources.)
Orkeosaurus wrote:None of these are making any attempt to state what it is your problem is.
This is simply wrong. My very first post makes it very clear what my problem is: Mao should not be considered one of history's most evil people. The fact that so many do consider him to be so indicates to me that people are either prejudiced against him as a Communist leader or they simply don't know much about Chinese history. You clearly understood that when you posted that he probably caused more people to die than any other historical figure. My next post referred to what was wrong with that: it is such an overblown and ahistorical comment that it cannot be simply attributed to oversimplification and is actually a misunderstanding. To which you required explanation. The explanation would have required far more work than it was worth, IMO, and you would get a better understanding of it by reading credible--or even incredible--printed sources than from this thread EVEN (I admitted) in a post written by myself (so much for self-aggrandizing, but I can't blame you for the urge to read tones into posts as we are all guilty).
If you wanted to avoid a conversation about Chairman Mao's responsibility for the deaths during the Great Leap Forward why did you decide to call people who considered The Great Leap Forward his responsibility brainwashed idiots?
When someone states that there are no such things as atoms and you reply that there is no good reason to say so, you are not thereby obliging yourself to hold forth on physics for as long as the idiot in question still refuses to be reasonable.
There are many, many historians who blame Mao for the deaths incurred during the Great Leap Forward. The forced abolishment of private plots of land, The Great Sparrow Campaign, exporting grain during famine to maintain national image, refusing the help of engineers in the construction of irrigation equipment, the pig iron fiasco; there was a lot on his hands. There were moderates in the party opposing the extent to which Mao pursued his policies, but he largely ignored them. He was obviously screwed over by his subordinates making up numbers, but he was mostly responsible for having set up the system that led to such a breakdown of information. I would call him negligent. Too blinded by pride and ideology to fulfil the responsbilities he had forcibly assumed.
This paragraph seems to me to be attributing to the most visible party the inadequacies of all parties involved. This is a constant pitfall of journalistic-style history, especially when there are stark ideological motives at play. Mao bears responsibility for failed policies that he supported insofar as he supported them. Translating as much into responsibility for the deaths of millions of people is not so easy a step. Hence my suggestion of actual sources, including an extremely critical one.
(Although Stalin did engineer famines to kill people, according to many sources.)
Manchu wrote:This is simply wrong. My very first post makes it very clear what my problem is: Mao should not be considered one of history's most evil people. The fact that so many do consider him to be so indicates to me that people are either prejudiced against him as a Communist leader or they simply don't know much about Chinese history.
To me saying "I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up" implied not only that you disagree with him having been chosen as the most evil person in history, but that you don't see him as a valid enough choice to warrant his discussion at all.
You clearly understood that when you posted that he probably caused more people to die than any other historical figure. My next post referred to what was wrong with that: it is such an overblown and ahistorical comment that it cannot be simply attributed to oversimplification and is actually a misunderstanding.
It would have been nice for to have actually referenced my comment, rather than simply state that I had "crossed the line into misunderstanding".
To which you required explanation. The explanation would have required far more work than it was worth, IMO, and you would get a better understanding of it by reading credible--or even incredible--printed sources than from this thread EVEN (I admitted) in a post written by myself (so much for self-aggrandizing, but I can't blame you for the urge to read tones into posts as we are all guilty).
Fair enough.
When someone states that there are no such things as atoms and you reply that there is no good reason to say so, you are not thereby obliging yourself to hold forth on physics for as long as the idiot in question still refuses to be reasonable.
Don't pretend your views on this matter are supported to anywhere near that degree. When someone states a widely-held opinion and you reply that they must brainwashed or ignorant you sure as hell are obliging yourself to defend this viewpoint.
This paragraph seems to me to be attributing to the most visible party the inadequacies of all parties involved. This is a constant pitfall of journalistic-style history, especially when there are stark ideological motives at play. Mao bears responsibility for failed policies that he supported insofar as he supported them. Translating as much into responsibility for the deaths of millions of people is not so easy a step. Hence my suggestion of actual sources, including an extremely critical one.
I would say that in assuming control of the party - eagerly, and with the brutal murders of those who opposed his position or questioned his decisions - he also assumed responsibility for overseeing the actions of the party, beyond what actions of the party were led by him personally. But any case, I would say that his personal support for decisions to kill off sparrows, create useless lumps of iron, export grain during famine, and most importantly kill or jail those who were willing to provide him with necessary feedback were huge factors in the famine's deadliness. While haven't read either of the books you cited, my knowledge of the subject does come from other books on the subject. I'm not just making things up for my entertainment.
(Also, I assume you consider Stalin to have caused more deaths than anyone in history rather than Mao, correct?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:
Its an endless argument, both of you see him from a different perspective, so you won't agree.
Orkeosaurus wrote:To me saying "I seriously don't get why Mao keeps coming up" implied not only that you disagree with him having been chosen as the most evil person in history, but that you don't see him as a valid enough choice to warrant his discussion at all.
This is true and not in controversy so far as I understand.
Don't pretend your views on this matter are supported to anywhere near that degree. When someone states a widely-held opinion and you reply that they must brainwashed or ignorant you sure as hell are obliging yourself to defend this viewpoint.
An opinion's validity, thank goodness, has nothing to do with how many people espouse it. But, to take your point here for granted, let us consider the one-liner: "He probably caused more deaths than anyone who has ever lived." As Albatross helpfully pointed out hours ago, and as I have reiterated ever since, the problem with that statement has to do with the meaning of the word "caused." Granted, you have since then felt obliged to extrapolate: killing birds and backyard steel mills were bad ideas that Mao, who was in charge, thought were good ideas. And I've already responded to this: (1) it's a tad more complicated than "Mao was in charge of making people pursue these bad ideas," (2) I don't want to explain to you just how complicated it is nor do I feel like I am even up to that task so (3) here are some references to books by people who have tried to do just that.
While haven't read either of the books you cited, my knowledge of the subject does come from other books on the subject. I'm not just making things up for my entertainment.
I've never known you to behave this way nor would I expect you to do so. But, given the contents of your posts, I am not convinced that the books you read were very comprehensive.
(Also, I assume you consider Stalin to have caused more deaths than anyone in history rather than Mao, correct?)
I dunno. My degree is in Chinese history rather than Russian history.
Let me add that I don't have a vote for most evil person in history. I think it's kind of a sham topic. All the same, I get what people are doing here and in that light I disagree that Mao should be considered.
Manchu wrote:An opinion's validity, thank goodness, has nothing to do with how many people espouse it.
The burden of proof shifts, though. If I say "the earth orbits around the sun" in 500 AD and then refuse to back it up, no one's going to take be seriously, and I'll have wasted their time.
But, to take your point here for granted, let us consider the one-liner: "He probably caused more deaths than anyone who has ever lived." As Albatross helpfully pointed out hours ago, and as I have reiterated ever since, the problem with that statement has to do with the meaning of the word "caused." Granted, you have since then felt obliged to extrapolate: killing birds and backyard steel mills were bad ideas that Mao, who was in charge, thought were good ideas. And I've already responded to this: (1) it's a tad more complicated than "Mao was in charge of making people pursue these bad ideas," (2) I don't want to explain to you just how complicated it is nor do I feel like I am even up to that task so (3) here are some references to books by people who have tried to do just that.
I find it odd that your criticism of my comment is now that "it's a tad more complicated" than what I said, when you had prior declared that the problem with my statement was not that it was an oversimplification, but a complete misunderstanding of the subject.
I've never known you to behave this way nor would I expect you to do so. But, given the contents of your posts, I am not convinced that the books you read were very comprehensive.
I've only read parts of them, and what I read didn't deal particularly in-depth with Mao's personal relation to the rest of the party and the actual decisions of policy.
I dunno. My degree is in Chinese history rather than Russian history.
But surely you must believe someone to have caused more deaths than Mao.
Let me add that I don't have a vote for most evil person in history. I think it's kind of a sham topic. All the same, I get what people are doing here and in that light I disagree that Mao should be considered.
While I wouldn't count him out of consideration, I think it's a hard argument to make. There's simply not enough malice from him to be comparable to Hitler and Stalin. I have to agree pretty much with what sebster said on the issue; declaring someone a monster because of the result of their agricultural policy is a bit extreme, especially when placed against (more severe) mass murderers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I find it odd that your criticism of my comment is now that "it's a tad more complicated" than what I said, when you had prior declared that the problem with my statement was not that it was an oversimplification, but a complete misunderstanding of the subject.
The language was intended to be conciliatory. I find the understanding of causation implied by your original statement so limited as to be useless.
But surely you must believe someone to have caused more deaths than Mao.
Sure, in the sense that I believe that someone has eaten more walnuts than me. Based upon the same level of understanding that motivates someone to claim Mao caused more deaths than any other historical figure, I might claim that actually Stalin caused more deaths than Mao. But I won't. Because that level of understanding does not strike me as a sound position from which to make such startling claims.
Manchu wrote:The language was intended to be conciliatory. I find the understanding of causation implied by your original statement so limited as to be useless.
Regardless of the accuracy of this opinion, what you're saying is still a claim of oversimplification, not a claim of misunderstanding.
Sure, in the sense that I believe that someone has eaten more walnuts than me.
Not at all comparable, and you know it.
Based upon the same level of understanding that motivates someone to claim Mao caused more deaths than any other historical figure, I might claim that actually Stalin caused more deaths than Mao. But I won't. Because that level of understanding does not strike me as a sound position from which to make such startling claims.
It sounds to me like you don't actually have any idea whether I'm wrong or right.
Frazzled wrote:As noted, I said EVIL, not top evil. An agreed that puts him in footing of dozens of other dictators in the 20th century. The 20th Century reeked in that regard (but was probably better than the 19th or 18th and so forth).
Yeah, I know you said evil, which is why I was agreeing with your post for the most part. I was then pointing out the thread asks for most evil, and was expanding on the point in that context.
And yeah, Saddam is just another in the long line of tyrants you see in history.
smiling Assassin wrote:Can we differentiate between "evil" and "stupid"?
I would hesitate to call Hitler evil. He was a traumatised man, who wanted to do the best for his country & people. He wanted the Jews out - he didn't neccesarily want to kill them.
You have to consider that picking the Jews wasn’t just an honest mistake that anyone could have made. It requires a ridiculously strong selection bias to conclude an ethnic minority is secretly destroying the countryYou really have to look at why the error was made, and when people have so make desire to scapegoatpeople make errors of that typeBlaming Jews (and gypsies and socialists and all the rest) for the problems of Germany was
And the idea that Hitler didn’t necessarily want to kill the Jews is one of those things that people take at face value, but to their peril. Yes, there were all sorts of pie in the sky plans for alternative way to get the Jews out of Germany, but the sad fact is that whenever a minority is scapegoated it ends horribly. It just isn’t an excuse to say ‘well, they didn’t always plan to systematically murder them all’ when that’s how it was always going to end up.
You also have to look beyond just the slaughter of the Jews, and into the slaughter committed against the people of Eastern Europe. Anyone who read Mein Kampf would have known exactly what was going to happen when Hitler advanced east.
, would Oliver Cromwell and the Crusader Kings not be similarly evil?
They were also quite evil.
If you want to extrapolate xenophobic and anti-semitic people as evil, look at the rest of western society during this period. Churchill was a fervent anti-semite, Roosevelt's government did nothing to shift the old anti-semitic upper-class that existed in the USA. France, even, wasn't very fond of Jews.
Yes, there was a lot of racism at the time, and that should always be remembered. There’s an idea that people would have done more if they knew what was happening to the Jews and other minorities in the lead up to the war, but anyone who cared to know was well aware of what was shaping up. But people just didn’t care enough to really find out what was happening.
None of which excuses Hitler and the Nazis for building death camps to wipe out whole races of people. None of which excuses the mass slaughter of civilians across Eastern Europe.
samrtk wrote:There's no such thing as evil. It's just your opinion on what they have done, or do. Stop throwing evil around like it's fact. =P
I don’t believe in objective evil, but then nothing really has any objective meaning if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it. Words do have agreed meanings though, and I think evil is sufficiently understood to include the slaughter of innocents for personal pleasure, or as a result of racist worldviews.
smiling Assassin wrote:However Nazi policy never followed a path of elimination on a mass scale until ~1941.
The peaks of the purges follow closely to the major defeats suffered by the Nazis on the Eastern Front. Faced with the collapse of their grand vision of the conquest Russia, they took it out on the Jews. Getting beat in a fair fight and taking out your frustration on a helpless third party is pretty damn evil in my book.
Not trying to turn this away from the topic, but it was easy to make 4 out of the 2's of Jews and Communism, and that was a widely accepted strategy during this period. (Churchill called for the international elimination of Bolshevism and linked it to the Jews in the same breath)
Churchill was also a racist pratt, that’s true. Churchill never actually put anyone into a forced labour camp though. Nor did ever decide to consolidate power by executing the left wing of his party. Nor did he create a false terrorist act to consolidate power and begin the persecution of political opponents.
Do you see where I’m going with that?
And Frazz: I got my words mixed up. I would call him the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews, I would not call him an evil man.
Just think about that paragraph, dude. Just read what you’ve written and think about it for a bit.
Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.
No, that’s evil too. Simply believing in something wrong doesn’t make you above moral judgement, when the processes used to reach that belief are so horrible.
smiling Assassin wrote:People who slaughter millions to try and better their country and their civilisation, I don't see as 'evil'. I see it as ignorant, despicable, ridiculous, and horrifying. Not root-down plain bloodthirsty evil.
Think about how they thought their way into believing that some random group needs to be slaughtered. There was no rational, intellectual movement that just happened to make the honest mistake that the Jews were to blame. Fascism is a power fantasy about the strong nation, and about the hard men that are needed to control the strong nation. It revels in ‘tough choices’ that are almost universally cruelty for the sake of cruelty. It is psychopathy turned into national politics.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Then explain my mistake to me.
I’ve pointed out the error about four times in this thread. Simply looking at total bodycounts is simplistic, because the biggest death tolls belong to countries with large populations who had bad agricultural policy. The Great Leap Forward was bad policy (ideological and incredibly stupid) and it killed tens of millions. But it wasn’t undertaken with the intent of killing those people. They actually intended to help those people, it’s just that unfortunately they were stupid policies.
If we follow that line of thought, the second most evil regime becomes the British Empire, as their agricultural policies in India killed around 20 million at the turn of the century. Their policies of free trade were also ideological and incredibly stupid, but they also weren’t done with the intent to kill those people. They were actually intended to help those people, it’s just that unfortunately they were stupid policies.
Mao always makes these lists, but the British Empire never does. Why is that?
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't even know what it is you're contesting. Do you not think he has caused the deaths of more people than anyone who has ever lived?
If you consider total deaths the best indicator, then the most evil people in history become those with bad agricultural policy plus Hitler, which would be a crap list.
Manchu wrote:It's worse. I have no idea what you are talking about at all.
If you don't know how many deaths have been caused by anyone besides Mao, how can you know that Mao isn't first? There are a lot of factors to look at with Mao's decisions, but there are for Hitler and Stalin too. By the best estimates I've seen Mao is still on top (for deaths, not murders).
sebster wrote:I’ve pointed out the error about four times in this thread. Simply looking at total bodycounts is simplistic, because the biggest death tolls belong to countries with large populations who had bad agricultural policy. The Great Leap Forward was bad policy (ideological and incredibly stupid) and it killed tens of millions. But it wasn’t undertaken with the intent of killing those people. They actually intended to help those people, it’s just that unfortunately they were stupid policies.
If you consider total deaths the best indicator, then the most evil people in history become those with bad agricultural policy plus Hitler, which would be a crap list.
Sebster, I've been agreeing with you. I'm just saying that if you do count bodies, Mao is in first place, and given that he also did kill a great deal of people intentionally it shouldn't be surprising that he receives mention in this type of thread.
Manchu doesn't think he can be assigned the highest bodycount in any case, and so should never have been brought up.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Sebster, I've been agreeing with you. I'm just saying that if you do count bodies, Mao is in first place, and given that he also did kill a great deal of people intentionally it shouldn't be surprising that he receives mention in this type of thread.
Manchu doesn't think he can be assigned the highest bodycount in any case, and so should never have been brought up.
Reading back over the thread I think I see how that's what you've been arguing. You probably could have been a bit clearer in that first post.
Anyway, no harm, no foul.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote:Odd, no one has mentioned Emperor Hirihito. Anyone who lets his people get nuked twice over pride is up there in my book.
The issue there is assuming Hirohito was actually running the show and was not just a figurehead.
smiling Assassin wrote:Just in the same way that when a crusader's country invades the Middle East during the Middle Ages, and the men have God as their cause and on their side, they are not evil men even though they slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Well since this is grossly simplified and almost wildly inaccurate, your point is invalid...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well since this is grossly simplified and almost wildly inaccurate, your point is invalid...
I took it as a hypothetical, not actually a comment on the Crusaders. Then I started to hope everyone took it as a hypothetical, because we just don't need to add a debate on the crusades to this mess.
So can we can just take it as a hypothetical? I think there's more than enough grounds for debate in 'Hitler wasn't evil'.
sebster wrote: I think there's more than enough grounds for debate in 'Hitler wasn't evil'.
Then there are the debates of whether evil truly exists.
Whether national leaders can be fairly labeled as evil when the very nature of their jobs forces them to condone what most would consider evil in the name of national interest.
And my favorite, The subjectiveness of morality and the concept of the difference between good and evil being who won and who lost.
This entire debate is based on a word that doesn't even have a meaning.
·vil [ee-vuhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days. 4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation. 5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
Lets examine this. Morally wrong or bad; immoral, wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
Morally wrong: subjective, as is bad Immoral: Means morally wrong Wicked: Means evil vicious or immoral evil deeds: A confusing entry an evil life: ditto
Meaningless outside of codefied moralistic systems, and if you want to count the number of individual laws broken by u.s. or christian law it looks like MAO wins (30 million cases of manslaughter, abandonment and close to a billion counts of theft!.) but then thats a totally disingenuous argument.
Harmful; injurious; Evil laws.
Well, harmful is once again subjective though not so much so. Injurious even less so. Evil laws are laws that are evil, why is the dictionary referencing the word with the word itself? In this definition we could once again classify mao as a leader. The great leap foreward engineered by Mao and others was quite injurious to quite a few people. Quite harmful as well. Once again, by virtue of body count he is the leader. Interestingly though if one is classifying a leader simply by bodycount stalin surpasses mao in percentages of his governed population killed and hitlers percentages look even better. Do bodycounts make one evil? Is it total, or percentage of possible? Does the number in Maos case make it worse than the intention and cruelty of hitlers case or the uncarring intention of stallins?
Moving on.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
Well we aren't going to be using this metric are we?
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
I believe that while again relative, this is just as important as a sheer bodycount. People die, often times during great social upheavels a lot of them die. They die when really big tornadoes hit buildings too. People die. Just as AIDS isn't evil when it kills without intention can any leader be? Well, thats not important since they all knew it was happening and in all three cases acted to enable this to continue. All are possessing of character flaws, perhaps the most flawed being hitler here, but madness nationalism and racism are traits shared by many.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
Hitler did throw some good tantrums. It's a youtube meme now in fact. He really hates battletech and pokemon. As the most personally written about we have a greater understanding of the furer, while stalin and mao were both quite secretive as is the nature of their rulership. This is a stupid definition for evil though, so lets throw this one out too.
In the end when there is no framework for the definition by which we are seeking to define individuals then there can be no consensus or understanding. The Orkeo-manchu diatribe about mao somehow not being evil despite the highest personal impersonal bodycount in history, the destruction of countless historical heritages, the absolute repression of faith and belief, and the iron fisted destruction of all forms of dissension. He is evil. There is no tennable way to argue that he is not, just as Manchus arguments were often pedantic and circular; focusing more on orkeosaurus' lack of understanding than any real substantive defense. That said, mao wasn't evil. He was a believer. He believed in collectivism and communism and everything that goes with it. He was a brilliant leader and a terrible social engineer. His great evil was incompetence and the iron fist to stay in power despite it. Conversely Stalins great evil was the wolf like brutality that characterized his rule and Hitlers great evil was his utter disdain and disregard for the lives of humans he considered lesser. All are "evil" by many definitions. However they were not the most evil. Hitler never choked a child to death with his bare hands. Mao never ate the bodies of his citizens. Stalin never cut the children from the wombs of his enemies so that they may not take up arms against him. They just had big numbers enabled by great conflicts or even bigger populations. In history there have been many that while less able to cause death and destruction were far worse in character and act. Vlad the impaler for instance!
Personally I vote for Kim Ill sung or Kim Jong Ill. Kim jong ill is a pedophile, a cannibal, an institutional mass murderer, a personal murderer, and a false deity. Of any living being he has the numbers, personality, and personal acts to qualify. He is a monster in the vein of a psychopath with the national power and command of a god.
ShumaGorath wrote:This entire debate is based on a word that doesn't even have a meaning.
When people saw the thread title people knew what the word meant, they meant it for people to list the person they think did the most messed up stuff. That's all the meaning the word means. I mean, I don't believe in any kind of objective measure of good and evil, but I don't have to to say that in my opinion Pol Pot is worse than all the others.
ShumaGorath wrote:In history there have been many that while less able to cause death and destruction were far worse in character and act. Vlad the impaler for instance.
Honestly Shuma and all the others quoting Vlad, what do you REALLY know about the guy? Give me one reason why he was such an evil fella
ShumaGorath wrote:In history there have been many that while less able to cause death and destruction were far worse in character and act. Vlad the impaler for instance.
Honestly Shuma and all the others quoting Vlad, what do you REALLY know about the guy? Give me one reason why he was such an evil fella
When he came to power Vlad ruled with the intention of exacting revenge on the boyars for killing his father and eldest brother. Though Vlad took nearly a decade to do so, he fulfilled this vow, completing the task on an Easter Sunday around 1457. The older boyars and their families were immediately impaled. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgovişte to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Argeş River, 40 miles north of Târgovişte. Vlad was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge so he might monitor the movements of the Hungarians coming through Transylvania and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The enslaved boyars, their families and some master masons were forced to labor until their deaths, rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to tradition, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. None survived the construction of castle Poienari, as those who did not die from exhaustion were impaled.
[/In the West, Vlad III Ţepeş has been characterized as a tyrant who took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing his enemies. The number of his victims ranges from 40,000 to 100,000.[25] According to the German stories the number of victims he had killed was at least 80,000. In addition to the 80,000 victims mentioned he also had whole villages and fortresses destroyed and burned to the ground.[26] These numbers are most likely exaggerated.[27]
The atrocities committed by Vlad in the German stories include impaling, torturing, burning, skinning, roasting, and boiling people, feeding people the flesh of their friends or relatives, cutting off limbs, and drowning. All of these punishments mainly came from things people did that displeased Vlad the most; stealing, lying, and adulterous relations. Other methods of punishment included skinning the feet of thieves, then putting salt on them and letting goats lick off the salt. This was a way that Vlad kept his people in order and taught them that stealing would not be tolerated in his lands. No exceptions were made: he punished anyone who broke his laws, whether men or women, no matter the age, religion or social class.
Impalement was Vlad's preferred method of torture and execution. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. Death by impalement was slow and agonizing. Victims sometimes endured for hours or even days. Vlad often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that constituted his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The corpses were often left decaying for months.
One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad feasting in a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braşov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims. This place was famously known as the Forest of the Impaled. In this forest is a story of Vlad's "sense of humor": a servant was holding his nose and Vlad said to him while feasting "why do you do that?" The servant replied, "I cannot stand the stench" Vlad immediately ordered him impaled on the highest stake and said, "then you shall live up there where the stench cannot reach you." [28]
Vlad the Impaler is alleged to have committed even more impalements and other tortures against invading Ottoman forces. It was reported that an invading Ottoman army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube.[12] It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man noted for his own psychological warfare tactics, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside Vlad's capital of Târgovişte. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over 40,000. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Vlad over to subordinates and returned to Constantinople, even though his army had initially outnumbered Vlad's three to one
ShumaGorath wrote:This entire debate is based on a word that doesn't even have a meaning.
..
That said, mao wasn't evil. He was a believer. He believed in collectivism and communism and everything that goes with it. He was a brilliant leader and a terrible social engineer. His great evil was incompetence and the iron fist to stay in power despite it. Conversely Stalins great evil was the wolf like brutality that characterized his rule and Hitlers great evil was his utter disdain and disregard for the lives of humans he considered lesser.
I like this argument more. Shuma's more eloquent.
Subjective word.
If we had an argument about who was the "most good" human being, we'd be here for even longer.
Yes, Shuma, Wikipedia, i know that. Believe me, it's not exactly objective.
Yes, he was cruel and sadistic, but his torturing and killing only extended to "boyars" - rich guys, landowners, who forced peasants to work their lands till dropping dead of exhaustion while their families starved to death. Most of all, they were usually protected by Turks - which no Romanian of that time really liked, for reasons which i presume you may know. If you don't, i'll tell you. In the time, Turkish invasions were quite common in the region, with all the stuff usually attached to invasions - looting, raping, burning and the like.
In Vlad's time, partly due to his draconic methods, criminality rate fell to near-zero (he was some 15th century Night-Haunter). As Wikipedia clearly states, "In the West,...blah blah blah". In the West. Around here (i live in the guy's damned country, some 450 years later), Vlad is renowned as some of the best rulers Romania ever had (Along with Stefan the Great, Mircea the Elder, and Mihai), and a stalwart fighter against the Turks. He is barely the man Bram Stoker wrote about, and definitely not the man the West knows.
Believe me, sometimes i wish i lived then, just to see every traitor and landowner tremble to death and change his attitude to a more peasant-friendly one at the mere thought of Vlad paying him a visit.
If you ever have the time and the money, you should pay Bran castle a visit. I'm sure it will change your opinion of who Vlad really was.
And last of all, if you think i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about, i'll tell you this : every Romanian kid from 5th to 12th grade has every year,at History classes, one class specifically dedicated to Vlad and who he was - every year with increasing detail and information. I can't remember exactly everything, but if you wish i could dig through my notebooks and give you more. Peace!
In Vlad's time, partly due to his draconic methods, criminality rate fell to near-zero (he was some 15th century Night-Haunter). As Wikipedia clearly states, "In the West,...blah blah blah". In the West. Around here (i live in the guy's damned country, some 450 years later), Vlad is renowned as some of the best rulers Romania ever had (Along with Stefan the Great, Mircea the Elder, and Mihai), and a stalwart fighter against the Turks. He is barely the man Bram Stoker wrote about, and definitely not the man the West knows.
It's quite clear that his myth is heavily exagerated, though his status as a national hero arrived some 300 years after his death at minimum. His subjects certainly would not have thought so, nor would his enemies. It's very easy to glorify atrocities in hindsight. Mao is known as the father of modern china and Stalin is quite well thought of in Russia. That doesn't somehow vindicate their actions. He was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, likely tens of thousands and the vast majority of those were tortured terribly. People don't deserve to have their innards splayed in front of them for stealing food.
That doesn't make a ruler a good one.
And last of all, if you think i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about, i'll tell you this : every Romanian kid from 5th to 12th grade has every year,at History classes, one class specifically dedicated to Vlad and who he was - every year with increasing detail and information. I can't remember exactly everything, but if you wish i could dig through my notebooks and give you more. Peace!
Every kid in china is taught about Mao. Every Russian is taught about Stalin. National and nationalistic heroes aren't always what they get talked up in grade school and It's telling that vlad was not regarded as a hero until hundreds of years after his death.
Really? As i can see you're so familiar with Wikipedia, you should read better the article there. Every side which tells his stories is acknowledged by Wikipedia to be either exaggerated, diformed or outright false.
Moreover, a simple matter of thinking. Let's presume you are a 15th century peasant. You are forced each day to work you master's land, while being paid with virtually nothing. You have a wife and kids who starve to death, while your master and his family gorge themselves on the foods and drinks. Then Vlad comes, sees what your master does, and gives him a horrifying death by impalement, followed by giving you part of his lands. Would you find him evil then, or would you consider it justice?
ShumaGorath wrote:Every kid in china is taught about Mao. Every Russian is taught about Stalin. National and nationalistic heroes aren't always what they get talked up in grade school and It's telling that vlad was not regarded as a hero until hundreds of years after his death.
Not necessarily. I consider we are objective enough to be taught which person in our history was bad and who wasn't, for instance Dej and Ceasusescu (communist leaders), or Marshal Antonescu (WW2 Nazi collaborationist) And yes, every Russian may be taught about Stalin, but are they told he was a hero? I very very very much doubt it. About this we should ask Soladrin, he should know what they're taught in school about Stalin
Really? As i can see you're so familiar with Wikipedia, you should read better the article there. Every side which tells his stories is acknowledged by Wikipedia to be either exaggerated, diformed or outright false.
See
It's quite clear that his myth is heavily exagerated, though his status as a national hero arrived some 300 years after his death at minimum.
I posted that in the post you're quoting!
Moreover, a simple matter of thinking. Let's presume you are a 15th century peasant. You are forced each day to work you master's land, while being paid with virtually nothing. You have a wife and kids who starve to death, while your master and his family gorge themselves on the foods and drinks. Then Vlad comes, sees what your master does, and gives him a horrifying death by impalement, followed by giving you part of his lands. Would you find him evil then, or would you consider it justice?
That depends. Did he later tie my legs to horses and drive a stake through my torso for being accused of adultery?
aka_tizz wrote:Would you give him any reasons to accuse you of adultery?
I doubt he goes around accusing people of adultery. My donkey-cave neighbor that wants my land might though! These things happen when you have no court system and arbitrarily harsh punishments for crimes that are often times impossible to prove! Laws and punishments like these are sort of the hallmark of really bad or incredibly violent leaders.
aka_tizz wrote:Well, even with the present court system people are punished for crimes they didn't commit, so i hardly see the point there.
True, when chad totally narcs on you saying you had a dime bag when you totally didn't the pigs still came and tore through your locker and found that dank roach you had been saving! You know what we don't do to people falsely accused of theft? Place one thousand of them outside of a 7/11 impaled on 20 foot stakes to ward off other would be shoplifters. This conversation is ridiculous. You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.
ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.
No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles
ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.
No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles
Firsthand experience several centuries later is not good or functional empirical evidence for the quality of life or quality of rulership. You aren't doctor manhatten, you don't experience time from a quantumly separate position.
ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.
No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles
Firsthand experience several centuries later is not good or functional empirical evidence for the quality of life or quality of rulership. You aren't doctor manhatten, you don't experience time from a quantumly separate position.
Firsthand experience several centuries later 400 km away from where he lived is still better than Firsthand experience several centuries later 10000 km away from where he lived
At least agree with me on this. No matter what you or i have to say, none of us will probably change their opinions. So let's put an end to this
ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.
No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles
Firsthand experience several centuries later is not good or functional empirical evidence for the quality of life or quality of rulership. You aren't doctor manhatten, you don't experience time from a quantumly separate position.
Firsthand experience several centuries later 400 km away from where he lived is still better than Firsthand experience several centuries later 10000 km away from where he lived
At least agree with me on this. No matter what you or i have to say, none of us will probably change their opinions. So let's put an end to this
I'm arguing that firsthand experience is worthless in this situation, not that the gradation governed by distance is particularly important. However you're right, we're unlikely to come to consensus here so lets just leave it behind.
aka_tizz wrote:And yes, every Russian may be taught about Stalin, but are they told he was a hero? I very very very much doubt it. About this we should ask Soladrin, he should know what they're taught in school about Stalin
There is presently a powerful drive to rehabilitate the image of Stalin in Russia. There have been government raids on archives documenting the atrocities of Stalinist Russia. Children are taught about Stalin and his forced labour camps and purges are brushed over in place of industrialisation.
Hm, i have to admit i had no idea about that. IMO, they should be told "Kids, say with me : Stalin was bad, Stalin was bad, Stalin was..." "Kids choir repeating with teacher 100000x times over"
Yes, and he built the best holiday locations where people could go - for FREE!. And he had the best ads for them:
"Almost FREE 5-year trip to Kolima!!! Transport and accommodation paid for by the great USSR Government! Prices as low as one bad thought of the communist regime! Business class seats will require that bad thought to be verbally expressed! What are you waiting for? There are places for everyone!!! APPLY NOW!!!"
Oh, he was also leader of the Happy Marines - Always Happy!!! All the time!!!
aka_tizz wrote:Hm, i have to admit i had no idea about that. IMO, they should be told
"Kids, say with me : Stalin was bad, Stalin was bad, Stalin was..."
"Kids choir repeating with teacher 100000x times over"
Would probably be better, but not by much. I think we should just teach historical figures as they were, what they did and didn't do, and the circumstances that allowed/facilitated that. Leave judgement for internet forums.
The most evil person I can think of:
Hitler
Stalin
moot Mao
Pol Pot
Ivan(not me)
Someone who can rape and then brutally kill his own children(and newborns)
Sadist who enjoys beheading
You'll notice there's a strong link between facial hair and evil.
As if it's an outward sign of an inner devotion.
True enough there are, a few, good people with facial hair ...but even some of them are a bit dodgy.
Take Santa. Decent enough chap... but why only do that once a year eh ? Laziness, that's all it is. His Elfin "helpers"... malnourished child slave labourers. It's only this once a year PR splurge that keeps Amnesty International off of his back.
)
