Jump to content

Who is worse


Python.

Recommended Posts

Which do you think is worse? ISIS or Hitler?

well that escalated quickly didnt it huh

 

To a degree, I do have some respect for Hitler. 

He was a great public speaker, leader, general. Passionate in his cause, however fucking stupid it was. 

 

ISIS is also pure evil. They destroy without reason. Complete hypocrites to the religion they're trying to force. Kill and pillage with no remorse and their only skills are film editing and making memes unintentionally.

 

If I had to make a list of the 3 things I think are the most evil (horrible*) to ever exist in this world, it would probably be 

1. ISIS

2. Cancer

3. Hitler

Bonus 4th: The current North Korean govt.

 

Anyway. Thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted · Hidden by puddingkip, August 24, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by puddingkip, August 24, 2015 - No reason given

0.1 python

1. ISIS

2. Cancer

 

hitler did nothing wrong

Link to comment

How is Cancer evil, that is like saying wild animals are evil because they kill people. Cancer doesn't have a mind of its own, its a virus. Viruses dont knowingly kill people therefore they aren't evil they are just destructive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is Cancer evil, that is like saying wild animals are evil because they kill people. Cancer doesn't have a mind of its own, its a virus. Viruses dont knowingly kill people therefore they aren't evil they are just destructive

 

Because cancer is evil. 8 million people die from cancer every year. We can say only people are evil, but Hitler killed ~10 million all together in, what, 8 years or so?

Maybe I'm biased, but the fact is nature can be just as destructive and evil as any other nonsensical hate group that kills for no reason.

 

Edit: I don't wanna get into this argument though. It's just my opinion. Discuss the question I asked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because cancer is evil. 8 million people die from cancer every year. We can say only people are evil, but Hitler killed ~10 million all together in, what, 8 years or so?

But maybe I'm biased, but the fact is nature can be just as destructive and evil as any other nonsensical hate group that kills for no reason.

Did you even read it? Evil by definition is knowingly doing bad. Cancer doesn't have a mind of its own, therefore it is destructive, not evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read it? Evil by definition is knowingly doing bad. Cancer doesn't have a mind of its own, therefore it is destructive, not evil.

prove it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all dependent upon the definition of evil. I find evil to be very subjective. What hitler did is evil to me, evil to most people, but to hitler it wasn't evil. He thought he was doing the right thing. By the definition of evil I accept, hitler could not have considered himself to be evil, because he would have to acknowledge what he was doing was wrong, which I don't believe he did.

 

Evil to me is doing something that YOU believe is wrong. It's evil to kill someone if you think killing someone is evil, but if you think it's the right thing to do, it's not evil.

 

Evil is a perspective, not a mindset. Because to call something evil, you must take a side.

 

 

Edit: With this in mind, I don't think any animals except for maybe some of the more intelligent ones are even capable of evil, because most of them cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, and make the conscious choice to do wrong.

 

 

Edit #2: I think a more accurate way of saying Python's question, simply to avoid battles over semantics like those above, imagine the question as "Which of these is more horrible?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally comparing a group of people to one person is pretty stupid, but besides that isn't it better to just agree that both did or led to some pretty horrible things over making it something as pointless as trying to say who was worse?

I mean really, does one being worse than the other even really matter in the end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally comparing a group of people to one person is pretty stupid, but besides that isn't it better to just agree that both did or led to some pretty horrible things over making it something as pointless as trying to say who was worse?

I mean really, does one being worse than the other even really matter in the end?

 

I mean, the intent of a discussion is to share opinions and discuss. Why talk about something if we can't change the outcome? I'm just curious what everyone thinks 

Also, by Hitler I imply Nazis alongside following him. iunno if ISIS has a leader, but if they do then I would compare him to Hitler. As far as I know, there isn't

 

 

That's all dependent upon the definition of evil. I find evil to be very subjective. What hitler did is evil to me, evil to most people, but to hitler it wasn't evil. He thought he was doing the right thing. By the definition of evil I accept, hitler could not have considered himself to be evil, because he would have to acknowledge what he was doing was wrong, which I don't believe he did.

 

Evil to me is doing something that YOU believe is wrong. It's evil to kill someone if you think killing someone is evil, but if you think it's the right thing to do, it's not evil.

 

Evil is a perspective, not a mindset. Because to call something evil, you must take a side.

 

Edit: With this in mind, I don't think any animals except for maybe some of the more intelligent ones are even capable of evil, because most of them cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, and make the conscious choice to do wrong.

 

Edit #2: I think a more accurate way of saying Python's question, simply to avoid battles over semantics like those above, imagine the question as "Which of these is more horrible?"

 

I don't really about the fallacies of a definition. What do YOU think is the more evil of the two and why? Use whatever adjective ya want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, the intent of a discussion is to share opinions and discuss. Why talk about something if we can't change the outcome? I'm just curious what everyone thinks 

Also, by Hitler I imply Nazis alongside following him. iunno if ISIS has a leader, but if they do then I would compare him to Hitler. As far as I know, there isn't

 

 

 

I don't really about the fallacies of a definition. What do YOU think is the more evil of the two and why?

I'm just gonna assume you're not Hitler or a nazi, so you can't really say he did nothing wrong. I don't see a reason you would anyway. Unless you wanna debate that :^)

I think ISIS is the worst of the two, because while hitler did it because he felt the need to, they do it for selfish gain. Hitler personally had nothing to gain, I think it was a case of extreme nationalism, zealotry, and sociopathy. ISIS however does it for its own selfish gain. They think by killing nonfollowers, they'll be treated better by god. That is incredibly selfish and deplorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all dependent upon the definition of evil. I find evil to be very subjective. What hitler did is evil to me, evil to most people, but to hitler it wasn't evil. He thought he was doing the right thing. By the definition of evil I accept, hitler could not have considered himself to be evil, because he would have to acknowledge what he was doing was wrong, which I don't believe he did.

 

Evil to me is doing something that YOU believe is wrong. It's evil to kill someone if you think killing someone is evil, but if you think it's the right thing to do, it's not evil.

 

Evil is a perspective, not a mindset. Because to call something evil, you must take a side.

 

 

Edit: With this in mind, I don't think any animals except for maybe some of the more intelligent ones are even capable of evil, because most of them cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, and make the conscious choice to do wrong.

 

 

Edit #2: I think a more accurate way of saying Python's question, simply to avoid battles over semantics like those above, imagine the question as "Which of these is more horrible?"

 

Horrible and Evil basically go hand in hand, so u really didn't change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horrible and Evil basically go hand in hand, so u really didn't change anything.

You're not understanding my point then. What I was relaying was my personal definition of evil. I said that I didn't want it to be a battle over semantics, and I made my point clear in the following post. 

 

Anyway, as I said before, I think evil is doing something you know to be wrong, and horrible is just something that would leave you appalled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Cancer doesn't have a mind of its own, its a virus. 

 Harry, where the actual shit did you get that idea from? Cancer is the abnormally rapid growth of cells due to a malfunction in the gene that instructs cells to quit undergoing mitosis.  Try talking about stuff you actually understand next time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not understanding my point then. What I was relaying was my personal definition of evil. I said that I didn't want it to be a battle over semantics, and I made my point clear in the following post. 

 

Anyway, as I said before, I think evil is doing something you know to be wrong, and horrible is just something that would leave you appalled. 

 

Well I'm assuming none of us are part of ISIS or were Hitler in the past, so evil to anyone looking at the whole picture just means "bad" essentially. And horrible is pretty much the same thing. Sure Hitler may not have thought he was evil, but I'm guessing this thread is from our point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

 Harry, where the actual shit did you get that idea from? Cancer is the abnormally rapid growth of cells due to a malfunction in the gene that instructs cells to quit undergoing mitosis.  Try talking about stuff you actually understand next time.

 

 

That doesn't really alter his point though. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Harry, where the actual shit did you get that idea from? Cancer is the abnormally rapid growth of cells due to a malfunction in the gene that instructs cells to quit undergoing mitosis.  Try talking about stuff you actually understand next time.

 

This is the internet, where everyone is 12 years old and all words with a negative connotation, however different their meanings may be, are basically used interchangeably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Did you just like your own post?

 

And to answer the question... I dunno, they're both bad, ranking bad things seems like a waste of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just like your own post?

 

And to answer the question... I dunno, they're both bad, ranking bad things seems like a waste of energy.

 

Ranking bad things takes as much energy as typing up that ranking bad things is a waste of energy. It also requires like a minute of thought

 

And yeah, he does that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Ranking bad things takes as much energy as typing up that ranking bad things is a waste of energy. It also requires like a minute of thought

 

And yeah, he does that

 

How does it take like a minute of thought? If I was gonna actually come up with a real answer, it would take rather a lot of thought. There's a lot of context in both cases that would need to be carefully weighted. If I'm gonna give a flippant answer with no thought, I may as well give none. Which is what I am doing!

 

I mostly typed that it's a waste of energy because I had to address the thread topic to ask that guy if he liked his own post, or it would have been spam. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler saved his country's economy. ISIS just bought a load of ak-47s and started shooting anything that moves and doesn't follow their exact religion like it's the law. At least most of Hitler's actions were agreeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Hitler saved his country's economy.

 

What? The nazis trashed the ecomony, germany was screwed after ww2. Those who came after saved it, not hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? The nazis trashed the ecomony, germany was screwed after ww2. Those who came after saved it, not hitler.

 

Hitler came into power shortly after WW1 and somehow fixed the economy enough to have WW2...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...