Home General Chat
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options

Worst person in history

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Who do you think is the worst person in history?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My english teacher. :lol: or Vlad the Impailer *nods and awaits someone saying Hitler*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll be controversial and say Jesus.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kiezo
    I'll be controversial and say Jesus.

    I'll agree with that. He was racist, genocidal......
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    I'll agree with that. He was racist, genocidal......

    ....crap fashion sense.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by LacyMay
    ....crap fashion sense.

    Heh, yep. Or was you talking bout me? :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    Heh, yep. Or was you talking bout me? :p

    Both of you if you've started wearing dresses...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by LacyMay
    Both of you if you've started wearing dresses...

    .....just him then.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It depends what you'd qualify as "worst" (in which sense)...

    If you're talkingabout sheer numbers, then I'd say maybe Stalin. But, he was doing what he did because he thought the end result would justify the means (which it didn't in the end), so had some justification.

    Then you might have someone who perhaps tortured and murdered a small number of children, you might consider them "worse" because they have no justification, no reason, etc, and the relative pain on each victim was greater than Stalin, many of whom's victims were just shot in the head, with out any torture.

    So a bit of a pointless question! (except maybe to judge those who answer's values...)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Adolf Hitler , closely followed by Harold Shipman , then Stalin.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hitler.

    The impact that creature has had on me even today is unbelievable.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    It depends what you'd qualify as "worst" (in which sense)...

    If you're talkingabout sheer numbers, then I'd say maybe Stalin. But, he was doing what he did because he thought the end result would justify the means (which it didn't in the end), so had some justification.

    Then you might have someone who perhaps tortured and murdered a small number of children, you might consider them "worse" because they have no justification, no reason, etc, and the relative pain on each victim was greater than Stalin, many of whom's victims were just shot in the head, with out any torture.

    So a bit of a pointless question! (except maybe to judge those who answer's values...)

    Yeah that's very true. Those who kill millions on a genocidal level deserve a permanent place in any 'worst people' list, but I also think that although they were obviously evil in their ideals, views and spirit they did not kill all those people themselves - they ordered the killing - which is horrendous obviously. But then there are those who torture and murder children themselves which to me is one of the most truly twisted acts a human being can do. To do that to an innocent, defenceless child takes an evil person detached from any emotion.

    Genocide and homocide are different though and not always comparable, but both definitely horrific things that shouldn't take place.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A bit of a difficult question, to which I'm not totally sure of an answer. One very good contender is Hilter, but there have been other mass murderers over the years, such as Hussein and Stalin, that might also be worth considering.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its interesting that women never come up in these things isn't it!

    I'd probably have to say Stalin, for perverting a movement that had the potential to change the world and is now little more than a joke.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    Its interesting that women never come up in these things isn't it!

    I can think of a few ex. girlfriends! :chin: :p

    More seriously, I can't actually think of any female mass murderers, at least on a similar scale to Stalin, Hitler and Hussein. Are there any?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    I can think of a few ex. girlfriends! :chin: :p

    More seriously, I can't actually think of any female mass murderers, at least on a similar scale to Stalin, Hitler and Hussein. Are there any?


    Maggie Thatcher. She may have been a murderer per se, but she certainly was evil.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I spose it could be argued that Thatcher killed thousands (unemployment, Falklands)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    Falklands

    So on that basis, it could be argued that every government in probably every country has indirectly "killed" many people. I dislike the word 'killed' or 'murdered' in this situation.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    So on that basis, it could be argued that every government in probably every country has indirectly "killed" many people. I dislike the word 'killed' or 'murdered' in this situation.

    Of course they have. Think of the war that Blair decided to go with. He killed a lot of people, albeit indirectly.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    Of course they have. Think of the war that Blair decided to go with. He killed a lot of people, albeit indirectly.

    So that makes him a contender for the title of worst person in history? I disagree. I think it's necessary to consider which was the greater evil: the loss of innocent life (military and otherwise) and the outcome of the war. I am arguing that the latter was probably 'worth' the former.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    So that makes him a contender for the title of worst person in history? I disagree. I think it's necessary to consider which was the greater evil: the loss of innocent life (military and otherwise) and the outcome of the war. I am arguing that the latter was probably 'worth' the former.

    Not neccesarily a contender, there have been worse leaders, Bush for example, who orders daily bombing showers on some countries. Blair is a murderer (indirectly) war or no war.
    Can you say killing is justified because it's a war?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE

    Can you say killing is justified because it's a war?

    Legally speaking, there are two types of murder: lawful (such as wars) and unlawful. Therefore, it is technically legal. However, whether it is justified or not is a moral question, which will depend upon an individual's opinions and beliefs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    Therefore, it is technically legal.

    Exactly. But should it be? Killing is not justified because it is a war. In my opinion of course.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In that case she clearly is a contender - tens of thousands died to keep some pointless island on the other side of the world...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    Exactly. But should it be? Killing is not justified because it is a war. In my opinion of course.

    I reiterate what I said: whether it is justified or not is a moral question, which will depend upon an individual's opinions and beliefs.

    In terms of the Iraq war, which was the greater evil: the inevitable loss of innocent life or the fact that Hussein was an extremely dangerous man that killed millions over the years and presented a continual risk to the world? I am arguing that the latter was undoubtedly the greater evil. However, a major problem still exists: he is probably still alive and with great financial resources that could potentially be used in terrorist attacks against the West. Accordingly, was the war - and the inevitable deaths - justified? I am open minded.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    I reiterate what I said: whether it is justified or not is a moral question, which will depend upon an individual's opinions and beliefs.

    In terms of the Iraq war, which was the greater evil: the inevitable loss of innocent life or the fact that Hussein was an extremely dangerous man that killed millions over the years and presented a continual risk to the world? I am arguing that the latter was undoubtedly the greater evil. However, a major problem still exists: he is probably still alive and with great financial resources that could potentially be used in terrorist attacks against the West. Accordingly, was the war - and the inevitable deaths - justified? I am open minded.

    Do you believe it is justified?

    In this case ( and i state this quite strongly) then the war was partly justified. I think that the war could only be fully justified when Saddam Hussein is dead with no more innocent deaths.
    The reason to me why the war was only prtly justified is beacuse, as you said, he is alive and has the means to attack the world.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    Do you believe it is justified?

    In this case ( and i state this quite strongly) then the war was partly justified. I think that the war could only be fully justified when Saddam Hussein is dead with no more innocent deaths.
    The reason to me why the war was only prtly justified is beacuse, as you said, he is alive and has the means to attack the world.

    I too think that it is only partly justified, but it definitely was essential to overthrow Hussein for the increased safely of the West and the Iraqis as a whole, and in particular minority groups that suffered at the hands of this evil, perhaps even saddistic man.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    I too think that it is only partly justified, but it definitely was essential to overthrow Hussein for the increased safely of the West and the Iraqis as a whole, and in particular minority groups that suffered at the hands of this evil, perhaps even saddistic man.


    That is true.
    What really pissed me off was that they found hardly any eveidence of WMD, which was the reason they went to war in the first place.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    That is true.
    What really pissed me off was that they found hardly any eveidence of WMD, which was the reason they went to war in the first place.

    That is, of course, a valid argument. However, do you not think that the uncovering of thousands of human remains is good enough? Let us not forget that Iraq is a large country - twice the size of France - so I am arguing that many more mass graves will be found in due course and hopefully WMD, both of which are, in my view, exceptionally serious and important and either of which justifying the war.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mobily's Ghost
    That is, of course, a valid argument. However, do you not think that the uncovering of thousands of human remains is good enough? Let us not forget that Iraq is a large country - twice the size of France - so I am arguing that many more mass graves will be found in due course and hopefully WMD, both of which are, in my view, exceptionally serious and important and either of which justifying the war.

    That again is a good point. But the west knew what kind of a dictator he was, and out governments knew what went on. These mass graves that were recently found were from over 10 years ago, possibly from the first Gulf war. So if we knew what went on over 10 years ago, then why not take him out when we had the chance. That chance being the first Gulf war. there was alredy a war going on, but instead of killing a muss murderous dictator during a war, they chose to wait over a decade and start another war.

    We had the chance at Saddam being gone, but we never took it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RiSe & ShInE
    That again is a good point. But the west knew what kind of a dictator he was, and out governments knew what went on. These mass graves that were recently found were from over 10 years ago, possibly from the first Gulf war. So if we knew what went on over 10 years ago, then why not take him out when we had the chance. That chance being the first Gulf war. there was alredy a war going on, but instead of killing a muss murderous dictator during a war, they chose to wait over a decade and start another war.

    We had the chance at Saddam being gone, but we never took it.

    Very true. But that's a little retrospective, is it not? 'Yesterday is history' and you cannot turn the clock back and change it. So I think the issue should not be that we did not do it then, but rather doing it now. Indeed, you can say 'we should have...' and 'what if...' endlessly, but what will it achieve? Absolutely nothing except annoyance and heartache. It certainly won't be productive, which is essential. So my view is to concentrate on the present, not the past, although definitely learn from it.
Sign In or Register to comment.