This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I can see this is going nowhere. The bolded is exactly the point I have implied in all these posts. Most people agree that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are some of the worst people the world has ever seen. Thats why they went at the top of the draft. So I don't see exactly what point you are trying to argue.
This is a lot of value for the 7th, I thought.
Partially. It also has to do with technology (we can kill far more efficiently than the ancients) and the 20th century in general has been considered one of the nastiest centuries. 2 world wars. 1 Cold War fought via a number of proxy wars. 2 nuclear bombs. Mechanized warfare. Trench warfare. I know other eras have been nasty, but for one century, it takes the cake. This enabled your usual nutcase leaders like a case of scotch enables an alcoholic.EDIT: also celebrities are a recent-only category, for technological reasons as well.
Damn. I had this guy on my list since Hitler was taken in the first round and for whatever reason went a different direction each time.
the point I'm arguing is that our evil is NOT more evil than the evil of the rest of the world...we just think it is...You give Attila or Genghis or tons of other men in history the tools that Hitler and Stalin did and and the population levels of the world that Hitler and Stalin lived in and I bet you that their death tolls would be higher...my entire point is that I find it interesting that the only category that we think the modern world is "better" at is villain... In every other category we think that modern people don't even begin to measure up to the ancients... Except in our evil...The crazy thing is that it isn't just one act either... Its four different acts and, so far, six different men related to those acts... All have been described as the greatest villains of history when they were picked...How is that?Because they had better weapons and more people to massacre?and the sad thing is I can think of a bunch of other modern villains who are going to get picked for the villain category... In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if half the villains are from 1900-on...no other category that wasn't made specifically to include post-1900 people is going to be like that... not leader, not military, not scientist, or intellectual or philosopher or anything else...only villain...Only our villains match up to the standards of history...But the real question is, if only our villains match up to history... how'd we ever beat them?
This is interesting. If I was drafting, I could think of a couple very very very good villains to take ASAP, based on nastiness over mass numbers of death.
but that's my point...it was technology, population, and the way the whole world worked that made those men evil... Not the actual level of evilness in them.Like I said, you put Atilla the Hun as leader of a decently sized nation like Germany in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and you're telling me he wouldn't have AT LEAST had a similar death count to Hitler? Really?
lol my point isn't that they don't belong in the other categories...My point is that when they were drafted they were declared top villains of all of history, mostly due to body count and the fact that they were modern... Not based upon how evil and depraved they actually were...Remember, I am NOT slotting either Mao or Lenin as "villians". Mao is a "Leader" like it or not, and Lenin is a "rebel".As I said before, Mao led his people through a the first real guerilla war against the Japanese in the 30s and then a civil war against Nationalist Chinese forces in the 40s. He transformed a rural people into an industrial one. He led his forces (not directly) against UN forces in Korea and damn near put US butts in the ocean at Pusan. (He certainly killed a lot of Marines at the Chosin Resevoir).Lenin rebelled against the oppressive Czarist regime and serfdom of the Russian peasant. His Revolution threatened to spread around the world., and did go to China, Eastern Europe, Cuba and elsewhere. Almost India, Greece and Italy. Y'all forget how many Leninist there were in America during the Depression.These guys may have broken some eggs, but you need to break eggs to make an omelet.
Larry you are all over the board here. For one, most of the people killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were killed in very primative ways. They did not use nuclear weapons to kill these people. Heck, Pol Pot had most of his people beat to death or their throats slit so as not to waste bullets. I will give you the fact that they had a lot more people population wise. Media also plays a role in it because the stories are out there for everyone to see. I know for a fact that some terrible, villanous things have happened in the history of the world but they have not been brought to light as much as these have. We know about ancient scientists because their work has been studied and built upon by future generations. Same for intellectuals, writers, etc. How many people are studying the works of great villians in history?
Larry's position is simple. For whatever reason, which appears to not be very valid is the following:Newer Villains >>>>> Older Villains
"Invent"? No way. Washington Irving was writing them before Poe, and I'm pretty sure others before that. I think Poe was among the early ones to bring it to prominence. He did supposedly invent the horror genre though.
I'm not saying they wouldn't, but you can't change history. It is written. Attila simply didn't have the same kind of weapons or political situation in place as Hitler, and it's pretty pointless to argue "well, if he did..." Using a subjective, theoretical body count that Attila or Genghis Khan could've had as an argument is hardly fair.I can dig your other arguments in favor of sheer monstrosity over numbers, but this one is silly.
Of course we know, Comrade DC Thunder. How could they be villains, when they represent the will of the proletariat?Workers of the world, unite!
This is the point you need to consider. A leader can be a great leader to a certain group of people and a terrible leader to another group. When I was judging the Business Moguls in the GAD, I was taking into consideration the persons whole impact on society. Yet without a doubt some of the greatest business leaders in history have been some of the meanest, most ruthless SOB's out there. Thats how they became great. Leaders can be the same way. Attila doesn't come to power and success if he doesn't practice what you refer to as villainy.lol my point isn't that they don't belong in the other categories...My point is that when they were drafted they were declared top villains of all of history, mostly due to body count and the fact that they were modern... Not based upon how evil and depraved they actually were...Remember, I am NOT slotting either Mao or Lenin as "villians". Mao is a "Leader" like it or not, and Lenin is a "rebel".
As I said before, Mao led his people through a the first real guerilla war against the Japanese in the 30s and then a civil war against Nationalist Chinese forces in the 40s. He transformed a rural people into an industrial one. He led his forces (not directly) against UN forces in Korea and damn near put US butts in the ocean at Pusan. (He certainly killed a lot of Marines at the Chosin Resevoir).
Lenin rebelled against the oppressive Czarist regime and serfdom of the Russian peasant. His Revolution threatened to spread around the world., and did go to China, Eastern Europe, Cuba and elsewhere. Almost India, Greece and Italy. Y'all forget how many Leninist there were in America during the Depression.
These guys may have broken some eggs, but you need to break eggs to make an omelet.
but your whole argument is about numbers...But the numbers that the men described as most evil so far had nothing to do with how evil those men were, but with the number or people in the world when they committed their evil acts...They aren't the most evil because they were actually the most evil men, they are most evil solely because they exist in the modern world...being modern doesn't make you more evil just like being ancient doesn't make you more good, yet it seems this entire draft has been going on that premise since the first pick...
I'm aware of that...but Hitler built an empire... so did Mao and Stalin (Lenin)...This is the point you need to consider. A leader can be a great leader to a certain group of people and a terrible leader to another group. When I was judging the Business Moguls in the GAD, I was taking into consideration the persons whole impact on society. Yet without a doubt some of the greatest business leaders in history have been some of the meanest, most ruthless SOB's out there. Thats how they became great. Leaders can be the same way. Attila doesn't come to power and success if he doesn't practice what you refer to as villainy.lol my point isn't that they don't belong in the other categories...My point is that when they were drafted they were declared top villains of all of history, mostly due to body count and the fact that they were modern... Not based upon how evil and depraved they actually were...Remember, I am NOT slotting either Mao or Lenin as "villians". Mao is a "Leader" like it or not, and Lenin is a "rebel".
As I said before, Mao led his people through a the first real guerilla war against the Japanese in the 30s and then a civil war against Nationalist Chinese forces in the 40s. He transformed a rural people into an industrial one. He led his forces (not directly) against UN forces in Korea and damn near put US butts in the ocean at Pusan. (He certainly killed a lot of Marines at the Chosin Resevoir).
Lenin rebelled against the oppressive Czarist regime and serfdom of the Russian peasant. His Revolution threatened to spread around the world., and did go to China, Eastern Europe, Cuba and elsewhere. Almost India, Greece and Italy. Y'all forget how many Leninist there were in America during the Depression.
These guys may have broken some eggs, but you need to break eggs to make an omelet.
Tim to me this seems like little more than political rhetoric.
Where'd you get that from? In my last post (which you actually agreed with, I thought), I made the case that numbers were important, insofar as they give us a measure of how far those figures are willing to go to achieve their goals, but I also stated that sheer monstrosity and the grotesque nature of their actions must be taken into account. I clearly stated that numbers weren't the sole measuring stick. Most of the men selected so far more than qualify according to both of these standards. It's not like any of them have just numbers on their side. No one's saying that Hitler or Pol Pot should be at the top due to sheer numbers. It's much more than that.I don't see how hypothetical death tolls can be used as a reasonable argument, man.
Of course that's all it was. But it's just a little startling to read this statement from ultimate villain 1a about ultimate villain 1b. Especially in light of their relationship both before and especially after this brief peace between them.Just as stunning was Hitler's letter to Stalin, which I can't find. He uses phrases like, "my great friend, whom I have always admired..."
how exactly does that prove that they are evil?
honestly I've lost track of who I was arguing with... lol sorry...
but that doesn't make them greater monsters...it just proves that humanity will probably never get to a point where we are so educated and forward-minded that monsters won't appear and try to destroy everything in their path...your argument, if nothing else, actually proves my theory (that we are assuming modern evil is more evil and modern good is less good for no reason other than the fact that its modern)...
but you only say that because you think of them as villain 1a and villain 1b...I'm sure other people said similar things to Hitler and Stalin at various times, too, who aren't considered the most evil men ever to live...
No, his argument considers historical context, and yours does not.Ozy is more sophisticated in his thinking, rather than trying to dumb everything down to one factor.
If you don't see the difference; no problem. But there isn't any point in discussing it with you any longer.
I'm not dumbing anything down, if anything you all are...I mean, think about it... On one hand we're saying the modern world sucks and nothing good comes out of it...But on the other hand we're saying that the most evil, vile men ever to live come out of the modern world...But... the modern world sucks and is, obviously devoid of good, decent men worthy of being considered the greatest of all time, so of course we'd have evil? right?But that isn't what you all think. You think that our modern world is the greatest, the smartest, the most accepting world that has ever existed on earth... While at the same time down-grading out art, our literature, our leaders, our military minds, etc because nothing modern is any good...while at the same time saying that villains in the modern world are somehow more villainous solely because they exist in the supposedly civilized modern world...You are all having it both ways. You are saying the modern world sucks and isn't worthy to be considered on par with the rest of history... But then saying the modern world is great and that's why our villains are the worst...You can't have both... Either we are good or we're evil... Our evil can't be more evil because we're good when we have no good...
I think he fits better as a musician, but in either category he has to be top five...
Does a monster not seem far worse in a civilized world than an uncivilized one? It is almost an illusion when you think about it. The deeds look far worse than they would have in previous centuries but I believe it is only looks, smoke and mirrors if you wish. It is only the divide between the monster and the general populous that is greater not the actual acts or monsters themselves.
No flack at all. He was my second in line for celebrity consideration, after Marilyn. Great pick.
plus, we're not as "good" as we think we are...I mean, like its been said before, the 20th century was the most brutal ever (sadly that could probably be said about almost every century before it, too)...its a complete delusion, though, that our villains are somehow the worst ever and our greats aren't...No 20th century leaders or military figures have been drafted even though the two biggest wars in human history were fought then...we invented "musicians" category so we didn't have to figure out a way to rate the Beatles and other modern greats against composers of the ancient world because one group (likely the modern group) would get ignored...we added athletes and celebrities because we wanted to include more modern people...but how many intellectuals have been modern? How many scientists? How many philosophers?I mean in 1900 almost no one had cars and no human had ever flown... Now we have billions of cars on earth and we've been to the moon.. THE MOON!!in 60 years we went from never flying to the moon... Can you imagine that?and we've drafted Einstein and a bunch of guys who've been dead for hundreds of years for science...100 years ago the phone was relatively new and moving pictures were just getting started...now we have high definition plasmas, live sporting events around the world, and the Internet which is a publically accessible oracle of all the knowledge of all the world at our fingertips...and we don't have ONE OTHER SCIENTIST in the first 10 rounds of this?but we have at least 6 men who we consider some of the greatest villains of all time drafted who lived in the last 100 years and we'll probably have another half dozen or more drafted before this thing is over...and yet somehow I'm uneducated and making this too simplistic? Somehow I'm just being unsophisticated because I recognize the MARVELS that we create EVERY SINGLE DAY?I mean, seriously, could we take what we have for granted any more than we are right now?I could name 100 things IN MY HOME that 99% of the people in this draft would have killed to have... and all of them invented in the last 100 years... and none of them will get any recognition here...none of the men who LITERALLY saved the entire world will get recognition, but the men who almost destroyed the world will...How does that make sense?(note: I'm not proofreading this... and some of it might not make sense, forgive me for that... I just really don't understand how this works... it baffles me)
Nothing to do with you taking him in GAD I am sure.
no... it has everything to do with the fact that I think he is one of the top 5 musicians of all time... (note: I don't have anything to compare him to other than the last 70 years or so)
I disagree, MJ is a better celeb than musician when you look at others in the category. You want a recognizable face? Is there any face more apt to make kids cry and women weep in sorrow?
IMO, you guys are thinking too narrow in the celebrity category
1.02 playboy
Caravaggio, Painter
First of all, that kind of black & white view of the situation is extremely short-sighted. "Either we're good or we're evil" is simplification to the extreme. You're taking changes and cultural developments that happened over several millenia and boiling it down to A or B, with no middle ground.Second, no one said the modern world sucks. That is mere assumption on your part. It is much more reasonable to try to understand why so many of the non-villains come from older times. I'd reckon that the benefit of hindsight is of tremendous importance, since it gives us a much clearer idea of each figure's historical significance. We've had centuries (or millenia, even) to appreciate and understand the sociocultural contributions of the figures in the distant past. No matter what, it's impossible for contemporary figures to be seen in the same light, and that has a lot more to do with the relative shortage in modern positive figures than simply saying that the world is less good nowadays, or that we just take everything for granted.
It depends, Billy. If you're arrogant or delusional enough to impose an absolute sense of good and evil on all of recorded history, then sure, I guess it's all "smoke and mirrors" as you put it (note: I'm not saying you're arrogant or delusional. I'm just saying absolutist claims like this are).I happen to think good, evil, righteousness and monstrosity are cultural constructs. What is monstrous in one culture and era isn't necessarily so in another. Or the magnitude of that monstrosity isn't as terrible. To some times and cultures, cutting someone's arm cut off is an acceptable form of justice. To the present day Americans, it's monstrous. Context plays a great deal in the magnitude of horror and villainy.
