2023 UCP Alberta election

[Lumber]

I hope you limbered up before writing that, I wouldn't want you tearing a muscle doing those gymnastics.

I'm not sure why you think it's mental gymnastics.

Do you disagree with my ranking?

How would you determine which one is objectively (or even subjectively) more evil than the next?

Because they aren't the same.

Unless you're saying it's mental gymnastics because to you it's so simple that they are the same? Are you saying someone who commits one murder of passion is as bad as someone who systematically murders millions? Someone with a lot of power who enacts a policy with no intention of killing people but ends up killing a bunch of people is as bad as someone who ordered mass executions for following a different ideology?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm not sure why you think it's mental gymnastics.

Do you disagree with my ranking?

How would you determine which one is objectively (or even subjectively) more evil than the next?

Because they aren't the same.

Unless you're saying it's mental gymnastics because to you it's so simple that they are the same? Are you saying someone who commits one murder of passion is as bad as someone who systematically murders millions? Someone with a lot of power who enacts a policy with no intention of killing people but ends up killing a bunch of people is as bad as someone who ordered mass executions for following a different ideology?

You seem to be willing to write off GK into fourth place. And he is regarded as being responsible for 40 million deaths. And probably reducing the earths population by 11%. Not to mention its estimated that his DNA can still be found in 16 million people world wide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say all that sex wasn't exactly consensual.

Stalin you give a pass too because only 1 of the 7 million was "purposive" Some how allowing him to skate on the 6 mil and absolving him of responsibility for his policies and actions.

Mao you give a similar pass to. Allowing him to skate because, policies.

To me you're being overly forgiving to some.

I actually thing these comparisons are stupid. They are all evil.

 

[Remius]

I'm not sure why you think it's mental gymnastics.

Same. It’s opinion on how some may or may not view it. You have a valid point on what value we place on it based on “how evil”. But I liken it more to our taught history being very Euro/American centric.

Do you disagree with my ranking?

How would you determine which one is objectively (or even subjectively) more evil than the next?

I don’t even think it’s a question of one being more evil than another. (Although it is a barometer many use)

Because they aren't the same.

They aren’t. And I argue that they aren’t taught to then same level. The Holocaust is a very tangible real thing to westerners, part of our WW2 history and affected the world. Hollywood, history etc all permeate our western centric view of the world.

Asian history aside from their contribution to western expansion is barely taught. Same with Russian history beyond the Cold War friction. The crimes Mao and Stalin committed while on par if not worse than what Hitler did were internal issues in their countries so no one outside of them really cared or were affected. Also note that Hitler was defeated and Germany was brought to trial over a lot of their crimes. The soviets and Chinese are still in charge where they are and will likely never be held to account the way Germany was.

And Gengis Khan is the same thing. Not properly taught at all. People think he was just some mindless barbarian killing and burning everything. The fact that he is on the same list as 20th century types demonstrates this. GK can certainly be on a list but not really on this one.

 

[Lumber]

You seem to be willing to write off GK into fourth place. And he is regarded as being responsible for 40 million deaths. And probably reducing the earths population by 11%. Not to mention its estimated that his DNA can still be found in 16 million people world wide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say all that sex wasn't exactly consensual.

Stalin you give a pass too because only 1 of the 7 million was "purposive" Some how allowing him to skate on the 6 mil and absolving him of responsibility for his policies and actions.

Mao you give a similar pass to. Allowing him to skate because, policies.

To me you're being overly forgiving to some.

I actually thing these comparisons are stupid. They are all evil.

Where in the actual FUCK do you see me giving any of these people "a pass"?

I'm sorry for the vulgarity, but of all the assumption you could possibly make, this is extremely fucking insulting.

Attempting to judge that one evil act is more evil than another is not in any way giving any of the "less evil" people a "pass".

The comparison are material, because they are real whether you like them or not. The question form @Fishbone Jones was why do we regularly use Hitler as a yard stick and not these others. That's not something that @Fishbone Jones made up; he's right, people do use Hitler and not the others as a yardstick for evil. But Why? That's a valid question, and there has to be a reason why, and I'm positing a reason; that based on the nature of Hitler's killings, people everywhere, internally, feel like it his killings were more "evil".

Lastly, once again, WHERE THE ACTUAL FUCK @Halifax Tar DO YOU SEE ME GIVING MASS MURDERERs A "PASS"?!?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Where in the actual FUCK do you see me giving any of these people "a pass"?

I'm sorry for the vulgarity, but of all the assumption you could possibly make, this is extremely fucking insulting.

Attempting to judge that one evil act is more evil than another is not in any way giving any of the "less evil" people a "pass".

The comparison are material, because they are real whether you like them or not. The question form @Fishbone Jones was why do we regularly use Hitler as a yard stick and not these others. That's not something that @Fishbone Jones made up; he's right, people do use Hitler and not the others as a yardstick for evil. But Why? That's a valid question, and there has to be a reason why, and I'm positing a reason; that based on the nature of Hitler's killings, people everywhere, internally, feel like it his killings were more "evil".

Lastly, once again, WHERE THE ACTUAL FUCK @Halifax Tar DO YOU SEE ME GIVING MASS MURDERERs A "PASS"?!?

You can swear and use caps locks at me. No need to apologize. I don't mind a punch in the nose at all.

In your post I initially quoted:

Because when it comes to people's perception of "evilness", it's less about the number you killed, and more about the reasons/motivations and methods of your killin. It's because of the reasons/causes of those deaths. All deaths are bad, but it's the motivation behind the killings that determines the level of "villany" or "evil".

I would rank the evilness of "motivation" this way:
4. Being killed as a result of conquest would be the least evil, unless the killkng are bucherous like we've seen some of in Ukraine.
3. Next for me would be eople dying because of your policies (assuming the policies weren't instituted specifically to to kill you);
2. Being killed because you are a political enemy; and
1. Being killed because of who you are (i.e. Genocide)

So, based on that, I would order the people you mentioned in terms of evilness as follows:

4. Genghis Khan.

3. Stalin. Of the 7 (ish) million killed under Stalin's rule, only about a million were considered "purposive", the rest were the result of neglect, failed policies, etc.

2. Mao. His rule definitely resulted in the most deaths of all, but did he really "kill" the most? Most estimates are anywhere between 40-80 million killed under Mao, and I don't think he gets the negative treatment he deserves. However, most were the results of famines and forced labour, similar to Stalin (i.e. They weren't sentenced to death directly). Exact numbers of those "purposefully" killed for political reasons is unclear, but likely close to Hitler.

1. Hitler. He aimed to eradicate an entire race/culture of people for no good reason, and he "successfully" murdered a out 2/3 of European Jews. A crazy fact I learned recently is that as a result of the Holocaust, the world jewish population still hasn't recovered to pre-WW2 levels.

Because of your ranking of the methods used and your use of the words purposive and purposefully I interpret you to be meaning that anything out side those adverbs and adjectives to be of lesser value to your argument and that you see them more accidental.

We use Hitler as the measure of evil in the west because him and the effects of his regime are still prevalent in our culture. Hitler was evil, there is not doubt about that. But he is one of many evil people in the history of the world. Some are historical figures and some are nameless people we will never know. Comparing who is more evil by body count is silly to me. Evil is evil.

 

[Lumber]

Because of your ranking of the methods used and your use of the words purposive and purposefully I interpret you to be meaning that anything out side those adverbs and adjectives to be of lesser value to your argument and that you see them more accidental.

And I stand by that.

Scenario 1. Grain shipments to Somalia.

Let's say there is enough grain for only 3 million of the 4 million residents of Mogadishu. The government make a policy that the food will first go to Muslims and only what's leftover will go to Christians. They even petition the world for more grain because they want the Christians to eat, but they are adamant that Muslims will eat first. Try as they might to feed everyone, their policy results 300,000 Christian Somalis dyiny of starvation.

Scenario 2. Recognizing that there won't be enough food to go around, the Islamic government send in gangs with machetes to just murder Christians to avoid riots. 300,000 christians Somalis die by being hacked to death.

Do you not see scenario 2 as more "evil" than scenario 1?

 

[Halifax Tar]

And I stand by that.

Scenario 1. Grain shipments to Somalia.

Let's say there is enough grain for only 3 million of the 4 million residents of Mogadishu. The government make a policy that the food will first go to Muslims and only what's leftover will go to Christians. They even petition the world for more grain because they want the Christians to eat, but they are adamant that Muslims will eat first. Try as they might to feed everyone, their policy results 300,000 Christian Somalis dyiny of starvation.

Scenario 2. Recognizing that there won't be enough food to go around, the Islamic government send in gangs with machetes to just murder Christians to avoid riots. 300,000 christians Somalis die by being hacked to death.

Do you not see scenario 2 as more "evil" than scenario 1?

They both condemned 300K people to death. I see them as pretty equal. Evil.

 

[Lumber]

The both condemned 300K people to death. I see them as pretty equal. Evil.

The world is not that black and white, my friend.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The world is not that black and white, my friend.

To you. Both should be removed from the gene pool. Poste haste.

 

[Lumber]

To you. Both should be removed from the gene pool. Poste haste.

Agreed, but if I had only one bullet, I'd give it to the the guy running the show in the second scenario.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agreed, but if I had only one bullet, I'd give it to the the guy running the show in the second scenario.

Only a fool has only 1 bullet

 

[Lumber]

Only a fool has only 1 bullet

Unless an OIC limits you to 1.

 

[brihard]

You seem to be willing to write off GK into fourth place. And he is regarded as being responsible for 40 million deaths. And probably reducing the earths population by 11%. Not to mention its estimated that his DNA can still be found in 16 million people world wide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say all that sex wasn't exactly consensual.

Stalin you give a pass too because only 1 of the 7 million was "purposive" Some how allowing him to skate on the 6 mil and absolving him of responsibility for his policies and actions.

Mao you give a similar pass to. Allowing him to skate because, policies.

To me you're being overly forgiving to some.

I actually thing these comparisons are stupid. They are all evil.

“Giving a pass”? You’re absolutely out of line accusing him of that. He’s describing some of the shittiest people in human history and trying to apply an objective criteria to just how immoral they were solely in relation to each other. In no way shape or form is he excusing any of what those evil people did.

Come on, be better than that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Unless an OIC limits you to 1.

 

[QV]

All the banter about whether or not Smith said dumb things in the past doesn't matter. Smith remains far and away the better choice for Alberta and Canada than the Notley/Singh/Trudeau alliance.

A NDP win is very possible. It will be a very tough election for Smith with the information war on Smith/UCP/Alberta/freedom in full swing by the "progressive" left and their media.

 

[Remius]

All the banter about whether or not Smith said dumb things in the past doesn't matter. Smith remains far and away the better choice for Alberta and Canada than the Notley/Singh/Trudeau alliance.

Of course it matters. Because it is being brought to to fore and it can and will have an effect. Smith’s biggest weakness is her mouth. Someone pointed out that her main rival is herself.

A NDP win is very possible. It will be a very tough election for Smith with the information war on Smith/UCP/Alberta/freedom in full swing by the "progressive" left and their media.

Of course. It is very tight which makes things like past statements the thing that could tip the balance.

But she has a golden opportunity with the wild fires to show that she can manage a crisis and lead regardless of what she said in the past and regardless of how it is framed by her detractors. So far I see nothing in her actions in regards to the disaster that indicates that she can’t manage it. In fact I would even say she is doing quite well in that regard.

 

[Weinie]

“Giving a pass”? You’re absolutely out of line accusing him of that. He’s describing some of the shittiest people in human history and trying to apply an objective criteria to just how immoral they were solely in relation to each other. In no way shape or form is he excusing any of what those evil people did.

Come on, be better than that.

Don't forget Dr. Evil.

 

[brihard]

Don't forget Dr. Evil.

True, he was a pretty evil dude.

 

[ArmyRick]

True, he was a pretty evil dude.

Whoa, whoa, he didn't spend 9 years in evil medical school to be called Mr Evil, just give the villain the credit he deserves. Besides, he could run this country better than anyone.

 

[Remius]

True, he was a pretty evil dude.

What was his kill count?