Most Evil Human In History Aside From the Big Two
- Thread starter Blatherscythe
- Start date
Maybe not responsible for the deaths of thousands (well...he might be in a loose way), but he deserves a place somewhere in this thread.
I would have to go with Thomas Midgley. I read that between having lead-based gasoline adopted in the 20s and introducing the use of CFCs that cause holes in the ozone, Thomas Midgley may hold the record for the greatest negative effect a single organism has ever had on the planet. As for the evil, he testified before Congress about lead not being dangerous, even after having to take a vacation b/c of getting ill from the lead.
Who the hell is that?THEJORRRG said:
Maybe not responsible for the deaths of thousands (well...he might be in a loose way), but he deserves a place somewhere in this thread.
Whoever created the bible. That thing has caused more deaths than Hitler and the body count will continue to rise.
An actual person I know would be Joseph Gobel. He was Hitlers propaganda adviser. Jewish people were hated and mocked because of the things that man put out.
An actual person I know would be Joseph Gobel. He was Hitlers propaganda adviser. Jewish people were hated and mocked because of the things that man put out.
The most powerful, twisted and crazed bastard in media.Blatherscythe said:
Here, check out how pies he has his fingers in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_murdoch].
He didn't 'kill' anyone, he made poor policy choices that resulted in the death of millions.Vuljatar said:
Let me tell you a story. It went like this...
Mao: China needs to be a modern country like Britain or America! Everyone start making steel!
Peasants: But what about food?
Mao: We'll worry about that when we have steel to make industry which will make agriculture easy.
-turns to advisors-
Mao: This whole steel thing is working, yeah?
Mao's Advisors: Oh, yes. Great Leader, the plan is going better than expected and certainly isn't resulting in the deaths of millions.
Mao: Tee hee. Leadership's easier than I thought.
Rupert Murdoch is owner of News Corp, which runs Fox News, Sky News, the now defunct News of the World among more right-wing trash that parades itself around as 'fair and balanced'. It's the the second largest media corp in the world after Disney.Blatherscythe said:
I find it sound reasoning. I'm not telling you that you have to agree with me, but I believe his actions kicked into gear a series of events that doesn't end well. Hell we could just say him for the Great War alone.Purple Shrimp said:
To each their own, and all that jazz.
oh come on. you can't really be comparing stalin to hitler?
and i personally think that the man who created the first bible was the most evil. a thousand years of hatred and countless thousands of dead over one book. hitler ain't got nothing on this crafty bastard. sure people say that the bible is good and encourages loving your neighbour but i'm talking about the first bible. the root of all religions. that was what starting all the crap in the world.
and i personally think that the man who created the first bible was the most evil. a thousand years of hatred and countless thousands of dead over one book. hitler ain't got nothing on this crafty bastard. sure people say that the bible is good and encourages loving your neighbour but i'm talking about the first bible. the root of all religions. that was what starting all the crap in the world.
'Evil' is a very relative term. It's really a point of view more than an actual thing. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to answer the question. However, I personally do not have a definition for evil in my mind so I can't really answer the question. To me, Hilter or Charles Manson aren't evil. Hitler believed in something and really didn't care what it took to achieve what he believed was a better world. That sentence could be applied to many 'Heroes' in fiction. It could also be applied to Charles Manson, but he may have also been batshit insane. Does that cancel out his evilness or enforce it?
I believe that what they believed in was wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are evil does it? Just because someone believes in something false. If that was true I would have to call everybody who believes in a god evil.
The OPs example of Idi Amin is a pretty good one though, he didn't seem to be doing anything he did for any kind of greater good, instead he was doing things to fulfill his greed. However I'm still not sure if I would consider him evil. He obviously didn't have any qualms about killing people. So he obviously would not have considered himself evil. To him, he was just trying to achieve the things he wanted. If getting the things he wanted had to result in the deaths of so many people and he accepted that then I don't think I would call him 'evil'. I don't know what I would call him though, maybe insane, misunderstood or just brought up wrong.
I'm not saying the things he done (I only know of the things the OP mentioned) weren't awful or inhumane or however you would describe them and I'm not trying to defend his or anyone else's actions but I think if there was a reason for someones actions then they are not truly evil. They are doing what they want to do, and if you can stick a label like 'evil' on a man who violently kills 5 people for money then why not stick the same label on a man who violently kills 5 people to stop 10 more from being killed?
I think the only truly evil people are those who do 'evil' things for no reason and realise what they are doing is 'evil'. But like I said, I don't have a clear view of what I consider evil.
I believe that what they believed in was wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are evil does it? Just because someone believes in something false. If that was true I would have to call everybody who believes in a god evil.
The OPs example of Idi Amin is a pretty good one though, he didn't seem to be doing anything he did for any kind of greater good, instead he was doing things to fulfill his greed. However I'm still not sure if I would consider him evil. He obviously didn't have any qualms about killing people. So he obviously would not have considered himself evil. To him, he was just trying to achieve the things he wanted. If getting the things he wanted had to result in the deaths of so many people and he accepted that then I don't think I would call him 'evil'. I don't know what I would call him though, maybe insane, misunderstood or just brought up wrong.
I'm not saying the things he done (I only know of the things the OP mentioned) weren't awful or inhumane or however you would describe them and I'm not trying to defend his or anyone else's actions but I think if there was a reason for someones actions then they are not truly evil. They are doing what they want to do, and if you can stick a label like 'evil' on a man who violently kills 5 people for money then why not stick the same label on a man who violently kills 5 people to stop 10 more from being killed?
I think the only truly evil people are those who do 'evil' things for no reason and realise what they are doing is 'evil'. But like I said, I don't have a clear view of what I consider evil.
Quit beating around the bush with philosophy, most evil people do not see themselves as such. Certain people are just insane like Hitler and a few others, others are megalomaniacs, sociopaths and just plain pschopathic greedy human monsters. Now pick someone, out of all of human history it cannot truly be that hard if you weed out the ones with misguided beliefs.The Last Nomad said:
Any hope for true Communism died with Lenin, Stalins' Communism perverted the very idealogy. He may have industrialized Russia and he "saved" Russia from Germany who was already spread thin fighting on many fronts with an insane dictator wiht alzhimers in power, but at the cost of millions of Russian lives. Out of the 60 million dead from WW2 Russia had suffered roughly 28 million soldiers due to Stalins tatics and orders, even more from the executions he placed on those who ran away from hopeless situations or were captured. The survivors got placed in gulags because they had seen too much and could threaten his power. Stalin was an absolute bastard of a human being, at least Hitler thought what he was doing was good, Stalin couldn't have.Biodeamon said: