Who was the most evil person? - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 122
  1. #51

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    On the Hitler part - I think he could have won the war easily if he used Jews as a resource instead. I believe the more objective conclusion from that is that he's intents weren't so pure as he led to believe?
    Im not sure on that. For him to win he really needed to either conquer the Russia front or never fight them in the first place. Historians have argued for quite some time if he was an idiot for taking on Russia or if it was simply a preemptive strike given Russia was building up troops at the border. We like to credit ourselves with beating the Nazi's but imo Russia won WW2 both by wrecking Germany and Japan..

    To my point its not so much about Hitler as it is the nature of evil. The same could be said for Stalin or Mao Zedong while such thinking could argue a simple murderer who caused a tiny fraction of the suffering they did as less moral.

  2. #52

  3. #53

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im not sure on that. For him to win he really needed to either conquer the Russia front or never fight them in the first place. Historians have argued for quite some time if he was an idiot for taking on Russia or if it was simply a preemptive strike given Russia was building up troops at the border. We like to credit ourselves with beating the Nazi's but imo Russia won WW2 both by wrecking Germany and Japan..

    To my point its not so much about Hitler as it is the nature of evil. The same could be said for Stalin or Mao Zedong while such thinking could argue a simple murderer who caused a tiny fraction of the suffering they did as less moral.
    Russia would’ve lost the war on their own. Sure they had a high population but they were dependent on American companies to develop their industry. Ford pretty much built Soviet industry from nothing. Without him, the Soviets would’ve lost.

  4. #54

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Unfunny View Post
    How dare you send me another box of cereal
    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    congrats you're an inspiration to pedophiles everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuesford View Post
    I'm sure.. 100% clownbomber16 is scum. I'll suck my own dick if I'm wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    if you are still confused i have a stellar comeback which involves more insulting of the french.

  5. #55

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Yes. And Stalin was the mother. They had a rocky divorce
    And Poland was the poor child sent to the orphanage

    Is evil really just based on the results, though? We're talking about people who had the power to commit horrible things on a very large scale, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have done worse if they had the power to do so.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  6. #56

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    You misunderstood what I meant by internal rules :P When you think of someone who committed suicide, do you feel morally repulsed by their action? If so, then congrats its evil lol. Its that simple. (You don’t, do you?)
    This encompasses way too many things to describe evil accurately lol. Would you really say everything you're morally repulsed by is evil, without exaggeration? I can't think of a good obvious and relatable example to prove my point, but I think you can see what I mean.
    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    I hear you loud and clear.
    You're saying that furry fandom are evil. I agree.
    xD that may be an example although its a little trolly
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  7. #57

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    This encompasses way too many things to describe evil accurately lol. Would you really say everything you're morally repulsed by is evil, without exaggeration? I can't think of a good obvious and relatable example to prove my point, but I think you can see what I mean.


    xD that may be an example although its a little trolly
    Yes. Everything you are morally repulsed by is evil by definition.

  8. #58

  9. #59

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    lol ozy, I can't decide whether your snarky comments are praise-worthy or slap-worthy. I certainly laughed though.

    That's basically it, though: you can't say something is true by the definition of the concept you are trying to define, since the definition is what you're trying to find.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  10. #60

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    And Poland was the poor child sent to the orphanage

    Is evil really just based on the results, though? We're talking about people who had the power to commit horrible things on a very large scale, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have done worse if they had the power to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    I hear you loud and clear.
    You're saying that furry fandom are evil. I agree.

    Alright so I think there’s no difference in the moral rules that we follow here, merely a difference in the interpretation of the event. Physics is a good analogy. To analyze a system you need to have an interpretation of the laws controlling the system. We can have multiple different interpretations and arrive at different conclusions, but that doesn’t mean that we follow different rules. It just means one (or both) of us misunderstood the system. Its the same with furry fandom. Is it evil? Me personally, I could care less whether or not some guy is into furries heavily or not. Maybe you just think people who are into furries are also degenerates who live in their mommy’s basement and just leach off of society? :P I guess that’s where the evil part may be coming into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    lol ozy, I can't decide whether your snarky comments are praise-worthy or slap-worthy. I certainly laughed though.

    That's basically it, though: you can't say something is true by the definition of the concept you are trying to define, since the definition is what you're trying to find.
    Thing is, its not my definition, and its not even a definition at all. It is a literal description of what we find evil, and what we find to be evil is what we are repulsed by morally. We ALL have the same idea of what is evil and what is not. Sure, we can argue about utilitarianism and whatnot forever, but nobody actually follows those moral codes internally lol. They’re just tools for thinking and reasoning about morality. Nothing more.
    Last edited by Oberon; November 1st, 2021 at 10:28 AM.

  11. #61

  12. #62

  13. #63

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    How someone can say we all have the same moral code is beyond me.

    Abortion, homosexuals, capital punishment. Are the people on the opposite side of these topics just taking part in thought experiments, or are they just being douchebags?

    Abortion on its own has thousands of positions being put forward regarding the morality of it, for and against.

  14. #64

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    How someone can say we all have the same moral code is beyond me.

    Abortion, homosexuals, capital punishment. Are the people on the opposite side of these topics just taking part in thought experiments, or are they just being douchebags?

    Abortion on its own has thousands of positions being put forward regarding the morality of it, for and against.
    You know whats also beyond me? Your reaction whenever I put forward an argument you do not agree with. :shrug:

  15. #65

  16. #66

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Is evil really just based on the results, though? We're talking about people who had the power to commit horrible things on a very large scale, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have done worse if they had the power to do so.
    This is a very valid point. Why isn't the serial killer who rapes and murders to embrace his own hedonistic pleasure worse morally than the dictator that kills large amounts of people because he believes its in the best interest of their society? If the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action than just focusing on results takes a very narrow view of morality. Such principals are well founded within structures of law establishing very different treatment for someone who accidentally and negligently kills someone (manslaughter) vs the person who sat around and plotted the death of someone (first degree murder.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Thing is, its not my definition, and its not even a definition at all. It is a literal description of what we find evil, and what we find to be evil is what we are repulsed by morally. We ALL have the same idea of what is evil and what is not. Sure, we can argue about utilitarianism and whatnot forever, but nobody actually follows those moral codes internally lol. They’re just tools for thinking and reasoning about morality. Nothing more.
    I disagree and I think this belief is you projecting the way you think onto how you believe others think. There have been plenty of times in my life I have felt obligated to argue a point I disliked or take an action I really didn't want to on principal based on my ethics. Its frequently outlined in stories as the 'evil mad scientist' doing unspeakable things for a greater good others don't understand while the idealistic hero steps in arguing the surface level 'This action is independently bad so stop.' For real life implications just look into accounts of how Immanuel Kant lived vs Jeremy Bentham. Kant in particular functioned radically on principal for the individual to an extreme while Bentham focused more on the large scale of humanity and society and what would be appropriate in governing a populous.

  17. #67

  18. #68

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Helz if you were to label your meta-ethical doctrine, where would you fall?
    Labels are kinda rough. Whatever that human drive to simplify complex beliefs and put them into a category is just kinda unnatural to me.

    Spoiler : Rambling and semi off topic :
    Im certainly lean more twards Deontology than Consequentialism. My previous response to what MM said makes that pretty clear. I find the idea of focusing on results absurd because it puts the serial killer who rapes and murders for his hedonistic desire on the same ethical footing with the aircraft mechanic who failed to catch a problem with an engine killing people on a flight. Thats just insane to me.

    In contrast I am somewhat altruistic. I try to measure my impact on others lives by if they were better off for having had me in their life. Its not very healthy and I am unsure if thats just the main way I validate myself but there are certainly times I struggle between having meant well but with poor end results in regards to an individual.

    I embrace Kants Categorical Imperative. Especially the side of treating others as having intrinsic value and not as a means to achieve an end. Transactional relationships have always disgusted me and its honestly why I moved out of Austin. That 'culture' was becoming more and more like that LA attitude with superficial social interactions and people using etch other for advantage.

    On the large scale I certainly argue for Utilitarianism. One of the largest problems I have with society is how its geared to benefit the 'few at the top' to the determent of the majority. One point that caught me recently was how we fight 'socialist' programs that would benefit the masses at great cost yet we bail out faceless corporations regularly at equal or greater cost.

    I could probably keep rambling but I suppose my lack of ability to pick a label is partially due to the nature of labels but also partially due to how I somehow function on principal but with a bunch of contradictory beliefs depending on the situation. A part of me thinks people need a greater understanding of ethics so they can live in line with their morals but another part feels the deeper you dive into that rabbit hole the more ethical dilemmas you run into..
    Last edited by Helz; November 2nd, 2021 at 06:34 AM.

  19. #69

  20. #70

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Russia would’ve lost the war on their own. Sure they had a high population but they were dependent on American companies to develop their industry. Ford pretty much built Soviet industry from nothing. Without him, the Soviets would’ve lost.
    All the Ruski needs is their factories in the eastern Urals along with their patriotism to Mother Russia. They would win the eastern front with or without US help. The US entering the scene just hasten the inevitable. The Nazi's relied on speed, but their logistics can't keep up. Why do you think they invaded Russia despite having a goodie-goodie with Stalin when they both invaded and split Poland.

    I'm just going to assume these "dependencies" you're talking about is the lend-lease in 1941. Sure, it was approved by Roosevelt if that's what you're talking about "helping". But the fruits of labour came around 1943 onwards, in which the Soviets already turned the tide of the war. You really underestimate the cyka blyats around that time... Zhukov might give you a slap to reality when he sees you in the afterlife.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    You think Paopan has a different moral code? No, he’s got the same one we do, he’s just a douchebag.
    Sure sure. When all you did was attack someone personally instead of counter-arguing. Yepppp. Like this, or whether you play Arcade or FM.

  21. #71

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    This is a very valid point. Why isn't the serial killer who rapes and murders to embrace his own hedonistic pleasure worse morally than the dictator that kills large amounts of people because he believes its in the best interest of their society? If the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action than just focusing on results takes a very narrow view of morality. Such principals are well founded within structures of law establishing very different treatment for someone who accidentally and negligently kills someone (manslaughter) vs the person who sat around and plotted the death of someone (first degree murder.)

    I disagree and I think this belief is you projecting the way you think onto how you believe others think. There have been plenty of times in my life I have felt obligated to argue a point I disliked or take an action I really didn't want to on principal based on my ethics. Its frequently outlined in stories as the 'evil mad scientist' doing unspeakable things for a greater good others don't understand while the idealistic hero steps in arguing the surface level 'This action is independently bad so stop.' For real life implications just look into accounts of how Immanuel Kant lived vs Jeremy Bentham. Kant in particular functioned radically on principal for the individual to an extreme while Bentham focused more on the large scale of humanity and society and what would be appropriate in governing a populous.
    The fact of the matter is, we can argue till the sun dies, because you will never convince someone to change their ‘moral code’, if there is such a thing. Morality is INBORN. It’s that feeling you get when something immoral happens or something very moral. People buy self help books because they want to change their lifestyle and these books really don’t help at all. You think reasoning about your morality will, when a book and training programs don’t? They won’t lol.

    All the small differences we get in ‘morality’ arise from different interpretations of EVENTS, not from laws. The laws are the same. That is why you sometimes have different motivations, because you don’t know how to interpret a given scenario. There is some feedback from your own morality when you take an action that may be immoral because you don’t know if the action you took is correct. But that doesn’t mean that morality isn’t ultimately just... you know, in your head. Specifically INBORN. Its like the ability to see.

    And yeah nobody will ever follow these moral codes you just espoused, not internally, anyway. Sure I can come up with utilitarianism and follow it to a T, but is that really what I believe? NO! It’s just a formalism that works in certain cases, and not in others.

    And aside from this, people have sometimes other motivations that drive them, not just moral ones. Are you sure you are not guilty of hubris when stating you argued things you knew to be wrong? That’s the speck of hubris if I ever saw one lol

  22. #72

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    What's incomprehensible about it?
    You’re extremely aggressive *especially* towards me to the point where I’m wondering if you’re just disagreeing because you don’t like me or something instead of actually believing what you say

  23. #73

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Labels are kinda rough. Whatever that human drive to simplify complex beliefs and put them into a category is just kinda unnatural to me.

    Spoiler : Rambling and semi off topic :
    Im certainly lean more twards Deontology than Consequentialism. My previous response to what MM said makes that pretty clear. I find the idea of focusing on results absurd because it puts the serial killer who rapes and murders for his hedonistic desire on the same ethical footing with the aircraft mechanic who failed to catch a problem with an engine killing people on a flight. Thats just insane to me.

    In contrast I am somewhat altruistic. I try to measure my impact on others lives by if they were better off for having had me in their life. Its not very healthy and I am unsure if thats just the main way I validate myself but there are certainly times I struggle between having meant well but with poor end results in regards to an individual.

    I embrace Kants Categorical Imperative. Especially the side of treating others as having intrinsic value and not as a means to achieve an end. Transactional relationships have always disgusted me and its honestly why I moved out of Austin. That 'culture' was becoming more and more like that LA attitude with superficial social interactions and people using etch other for advantage.

    On the large scale I certainly argue for Utilitarianism. One of the largest problems I have with society is how its geared to benefit the 'few at the top' to the determent of the majority. One point that caught me recently was how we fight 'socialist' programs that would benefit the masses at great cost yet we bail out faceless corporations regularly at equal or greater cost.

    I could probably keep rambling but I suppose my lack of ability to pick a label is partially due to the nature of labels but also partially due to how I somehow function on principal but with a bunch of contradictory beliefs depending on the situation. A part of me thinks people need a greater understanding of ethics so they can live in line with their morals but another part feels the deeper you dive into that rabbit hole the more ethical dilemmas you run into..
    Have you ever considered that labelling your beliefs as ‘complex’ might be seen as pretentious? :P
    Btw, I see no need for ‘complex beliefs’ when a simpler one would do better.

  24. #74

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    The fact of the matter is, we can argue till the sun dies, because you will never convince someone to change their ‘moral code’, if there is such a thing. Morality is INBORN. It’s that feeling you get when something immoral happens or something very moral. People buy self help books because they want to change their lifestyle and these books really don’t help at all. You think reasoning about your morality will, when a book and training programs don’t? They won’t lol.

    All the small differences we get in ‘morality’ arise from different interpretations of EVENTS, not from laws. The laws are the same. That is why you sometimes have different motivations, because you don’t know how to interpret a given scenario. There is some feedback from your own morality when you take an action that may be immoral because you don’t know if the action you took is correct. But that doesn’t mean that morality isn’t ultimately just... you know, in your head. Specifically INBORN. Its like the ability to see.

    And yeah nobody will ever follow these moral codes you just espoused, not internally, anyway. Sure I can come up with utilitarianism and follow it to a T, but is that really what I believe? NO! It’s just a formalism that works in certain cases, and not in others.
    We may have to agree to disagree here. I think and personally experienced that when I took the time to study the philosophy and ethics of morality it had a real impact on how I thought. I went from mindlessly doing whatever I felt was right to really considering the logic behind why it should or should not be considered right. If nothing else realizing actions taken that are not in the interest of you and your social group are not inherently 'immoral' is a simple belief that would take great steps towards dismantling many forms of ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    And aside from this, people have sometimes other motivations that drive them, not just moral ones. Are you sure you are not guilty of hubris when stating you argued things you knew to be wrong? That’s the speck of hubris if I ever saw one lol
    Maybe. But I was arguing and doing things I believed to be right even if I did not like them which I think you unintentionally misrepresented in that statement.

    I would also point out I believe morals and motivations are two very separate things. I am 'motivated' by self interest to steal money from someone but my 'morals' are in contrast to that motivation. I am then 'motivated' not to steal that money because of the consequences of doing so if I was caught but there is nothing 'moral' about that drive for self interest.

    Sure they both play into making a choice but the fact driving factors outside of morals exist does not invalidate ethics. It simply points out that the decision making process humans use is not purely built on ethics or morals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Have you ever considered that labelling your beliefs as ‘complex’ might be seen as pretentious? :P
    Btw, I see no need for ‘complex beliefs’ when a simpler one would do better.
    Im sure it could be seen as pretentious although the fact I actively poke holes in my reasoning and point out my own hypocrisy speaks very strongly against any desire for my thoughts to be seen as something more profound or grandiose than they are. And when speaking about a subject as complex as the driving factors that govern a persons moral compass I think the complexity of a position is intrinsic to the subject itself.

    Why do you feel a simplistic view is better? How do you feel I could possibly describe my moral driving factors with a label?

  25. #75

  26. #76

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Cry me a river dude. You just straight up called Paopan a douchebag, but if I say your logic is incomprehensible to me you shit your pants?
    First of all:
    Walk over there nicely. I love it when we talk with civility.
    Second of all:
    Instead of replying like a normal person something to the effect of ‘no, I actually just disagree with your opinion’, you choose to put on your passive aggressive voice like the love machine that you are. Here’s something FULL ON AGGRESSIVE for you, because I don’t hide behind words like a pussy: i think you're awesome!
    Third of all, and coming back to the topic at hand:
    You literally have no idea what you are talking about, and unlike you throwing passive aggressive remarks I actually have something to back this statement up with: most philosophers actually agree with me that morality is not subjective. Even atheist ones!
    And if we’re to break down my thoughts, yeah they are nowhere near that incomprehensible. If you don’t understand them, a) need more great discussion for us to understand each other or b) you're blinded by your respect for me. Could it be both?
    Last edited by Voss; November 3rd, 2021 at 08:59 AM.

  27. #77

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    At the end of the day, morality is a human concept and not some cosmic constant or truth. So at the very least - morality is subjective at least in that regard.
    Is morality objective or subjective for us humans? I'm not yet willing to tackle that subject tbh. But I will say though that atm I'm reluctant to take any opinions serious that take an absolute stance on the subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.
    My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI

  28. #78

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    The most evil person is me for when I close the thread for being too heated.

    More name calling will result in infractions and spicy edits by yours truly.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  29. #79

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    At the end of the day, morality is a human concept and not some cosmic constant or truth. So at the very least - morality is subjective at least in that regard.
    Is morality objective or subjective for us humans? I'm not yet willing to tackle that subject tbh. But I will say though that atm I'm reluctant to take any opinions serious that take an absolute stance on the subject.
    That’s just your opinion. Who is to say morality isn’t something bigger? Vision is also just a ‘human concept’ and its based on something real!

  30. #80

  31. #81

  32. #82

  33. #83

  34. #84

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    @aamirus could you show who's here off topic other than rumox and these last mod posts?
    This is a heavy topic. Before even beginning a discussion of who's the most evil, we first have to define evil. And for that we need morality. And moral realism is part of that. Like I thought everyone was well on topic in almost all their posts, even when heated. The 1 exception I feel is rumox.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.
    My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI

  35. #85

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    I nominate the admins.

    Seriously, "goofy" is a legitimate slur and the Canadian sources you're asking are denying it to troll me and the admins so they can make some faux pas in Canada when they visit.

    You'd think having some college-level educated admins and from learning about actual evils that stopping discrimination is the very first action to take against marginalizing vulnerable minorities such as myself. But instead they look the other way and actually enable it just because they're not from the country where it is a slur.

    It's a joke honestly considering how Nazis have started with enabling hate against Jewish people, actively harassing them, seized their properties, forced them into ghettos, and then sent them to concentration camps to work, starve, and/or die. And these same human evils have been repeated in many years before and after that, such as the Holodomor by USSR's Stalin, the Rwandan Genocide by Hutus, and recently the genocide of Muslims in Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi and her violent buddhists.

    What's next? Are the admins going to invade Canada and seize my properties like the evil communists they are?

  36. #86

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost View Post
    I nominate the admins.

    Seriously, "goofy" is a legitimate slur and the Canadian sources you're asking are denying it to troll me and the admins so they can make some faux pas in Canada when they visit.

    You'd think having some college-level educated admins and from learning about actual evils that stopping discrimination is the very first action to take against marginalizing vulnerable minorities such as myself. But instead they look the other way and actually enable it just because they're not from the country where it is a slur.

    It's a joke honestly considering how Nazis have started with enabling hate against Jewish people, actively harassing them, seized their properties, forced them into ghettos, and then sent them to concentration camps to work, starve, and/or die. And these same human evils have been repeated in many years before and after that, such as the Holodomor by USSR's Stalin, the Rwandan Genocide by Hutus, and recently the genocide of Muslims in Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi and her violent buddhists.

    What's next? Are the admins going to invade Canada and seize my properties like the evil communists they are?
    There is an issue in the community you are talking about. Might be worth making a separate thread on if you want to have a conversation about ethical moderation or the considerations that should govern decisions. I feel like making that 'this' is just going to destroy a topic that means quite a bit to me and entangle it with video game politic nonsense I do care about but needs to be handled separate from this subject.

  37. #87

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Pol Pot was worse than Stalin or Mao imo. The death toll may have been lower, but like 25% of Cambodia perished under his short rule. That's kind of insane.

    Assessing the evil of famine and war is always very ideological, at least relative to direct execution / killings of civillians. Famine and war invite a lot of elbow room to analyze people's "intent", to the point where a famine goes from being seen as an atrocity caused by hysterically delusional ideals to a "blunder" or a "mistake".

    It is weird how much of a free pass the late British Empire gets relative to contemporaries like the Soviets and the Ottomans. From what I know, they basically invented concentration camps and some of the famines they oversaw were at best totally unnecessary blunders caused by ideological obsessions and at worst possibly partially encouraged / enjoyed

    Also, I always felt the word evil had an... aesthetic element to it... or a spiritual element... that the word immoral doesn't have to the same degree. But everyone seemed to establish from the outset that they see the two as effectively synonymous. So maybe I'm just weird. If I see someone dancing on the corpse of a person they just killed, that's probably equally immoral to killing them because the dude is already dead, but I'd say it's more evil, even if noone sees the dancing and it makes no material difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  38. #88

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    How about the most evil person we know first hand? For me it's someone I considered a friend at the time.

    This person hired a prostitute, met her at a motel and proceeded to stab her over and over again. The attack ended after he cut her neck with such force he nearly decapitated her. There was so much blood first responders were shocked it came from one person. He then went to the cinemas and watched Harry Potter.

  39. #89

  40. #90

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    How about the most evil person we know first hand? For me it's someone I considered a friend at the time.

    This person hired a prostitute, met her at a motel and proceeded to stab her over and over again. The attack ended after he cut her neck with such force he nearly decapitated her. There was so much blood first responders were shocked it came from one person. He then went to the cinemas and watched Harry Potter.
    A cousin of a friend of mine joined ISIS and died in an airstrike. Didn't personally know him though.

    Can't think of anyone I personally know who did anything particularly evil.

  41. #91

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    There is an issue in the community you are talking about. Might be worth making a separate thread on if you want to have a conversation about ethical moderation or the considerations that should govern decisions. I feel like making that 'this' is just going to destroy a topic that means quite a bit to me and entangle it with video game politic nonsense I do care about but needs to be handled separate from this subject.
    I don't know why there's such a need to get so philosophical regarding this and to overthink it.

    Here, I'll objectively tell you what constitutes evil: action severity, consequence severity, intention behind actions, and whether they feel remorse for it. These are all looked at in courts. Using this criteria, you can also give sociopaths (1/30 people) some slack too because sometimes sympathy and remorse is foreign to them so they're not inherently evil.

    Take for example the case of killing of Ken McElroy, a town bully. The vigilante who killed him did an evil action, but because they wanted to remove such a unredeemable character from their town and people's lives significantly improved after his death, the overall evillness of this crime is quite low compared to pedophiles getting into positions of power and raping children knowing full well it's taboo.

    Therefore, based on this criteria:

    Hitler (17M) > Mao (49-78M) > Stalin (23M)

    Reason being that unlike Mao and Stalin's policies, Hitler actively advocated for the genocide of entire groups of people and was transparent about his grand vision of genetic superiority of Aryans. Whereas Mao and Stalin's economic policies created famines as a byproduct (killing birds and ambiguity of Stalin's industrialization for the country OR if it was planned starvation to crush the people's spirit for opposition), but they were less evil than Hitler even though they felt somewhat indifferent when they learned of the famine.

  42. #92

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.

    Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:
    • Slavery
    • Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
    • Religious persecution
    • Racial discrimination
    • Blackface in entertainment
    • Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
    • Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes


    Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:
    • Pre-marital sex
    • Revealing clothing
    • Nudity in media / Porn
    • Divorce



    I don't think there's much purpose to put a label on practices of the past, or practices done by different cultures.
    People who do so usually just view things through their personal lens, and try to impose their personal beliefs on others.
    But personal beliefs are subjective, and are not reflective of the absolute right and wrong of this world (a concept that I do not believe exists).

    An example of time-based differences is Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little N*****s", based on the nursery rhyme of the same name.
    It was published in UK where the N word didn't have negative connotations at the time.
    This title continued to be published in UK up until 1977.
    After which I suppose the "N word is bad" spread across the globe, and the novel is published exclusively under its US title "And Then There Were None".

    An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
    As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
    In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
    If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.

    I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.

    In obscure communities, you will probably find wildly different norms.
    For instance, tribes who kill on sight - They might see it as rightfully defending their territory against trespassers, we may see it as unwarranted violence and straight up murder.
    Same with cannibal tribes, they do not see cannibalism as immoral or repulsive.
    Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.
    Last edited by Exeter350; November 4th, 2021 at 10:50 AM.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  43. #93

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    It may be important to disentangle the idea of morals from sociological 'norms'

    The unwritten code of conduct for our society establishes some behaviors we should follow and some that are unacceptable but its hardly immoral to walk down the street in your underwear while its moral to wear a swim suit that covers the exact same amount of skin.

    Any objective standard of morality would need to function outside of that gap

  44. #94

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.

    Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:
    • Slavery
    • Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
    • Religious persecution
    • Racial discrimination
    • Blackface in entertainment
    • Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
    • Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes


    Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:
    • Pre-marital sex
    • Revealing clothing
    • Nudity in media / Porn
    • Divorce



    I don't think there's much purpose to put a label on practices of the past, or practices done by different cultures.
    People who do so usually just view things through their personal lens, and try to impose their personal beliefs on others.
    But personal beliefs are subjective, and are not reflective of the absolute right and wrong of this world (a concept that I do not believe exists).

    An example of time-based differences is Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little N*****s", based on the nursery rhyme of the same name.
    It was published in UK where the N word didn't have negative connotations at the time.
    This title continued to be published in UK up until 1977.
    After which I suppose the "N word is bad" spread across the globe, and the novel is published exclusively under its US title "And Then There Were None".

    An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
    As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
    In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
    If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.

    I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.

    In obscure communities, you will probably find wildly different norms.
    For instance, tribes who kill on sight - They might see it as rightfully defending their territory against trespassers, we may see it as unwarranted violence and straight up murder.
    Same with cannibal tribes, they do not see cannibalism as immoral or repulsive.
    Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.
    C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.

    Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
    Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
    Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
    Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
    Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
    Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
    Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!


    Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
    Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
    Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
    Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!

    Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.

    The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?

    Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.

    Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.

    Y'all need to take a ethics class.

  45. #95

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost View Post
    C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.

    Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
    Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
    Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
    Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
    Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
    Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
    Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!


    Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
    Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
    Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
    Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!

    Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.

    The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?

    Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.

    Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.

    Y'all need to take a ethics class.
    Your evaluation is based on modern ethics. However, the morality and thought process at the time may have been different.

    Slavery - Slave rebellions were a problem for Ancient Rome and other civilizations, and slavery-related issues continues to be a concern up to this day, so I think we can safely say slavery is an evil act.

    Treatment of women - This may have been a "fact of life" at the time, rather than any intentional ill-will. How about husbands who treat their wives well even though they see their wives as property (i.e. similar to a dog owner treating his dog well)? Keep in mind the norm at the time - the idea of gender equality probably never crossed their minds. These husbands were as good intentioned as the times allowed, are they still evil?

    Religious persecution - The Crusaders and Jihadists believed they were fighting for righteous causes.

    Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - We say that it is OK now, but in the past people were more conservative and uptight about it. Can we say they were objectively wrong?

    Tribes who kill on sight - The tribe I linked lives in voluntary isolation and have a history of defending their isolation by force. They killed a trespassing Christian missionary in 2018 who meant no harm. However, I don't see this is necessarily evil. The tribe, living in isolation, do not subscribe to modern ethics as we do.

    Cannibals - We find it repulsive, but they don't, and I don't think disease is a good metric for morality in this case. If they don't eat infected human brains, does that mean cannibalism's OK?
    Last edited by Exeter350; November 4th, 2021 at 12:34 PM.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  46. #96

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost View Post
    C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.

    Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
    Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
    Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
    Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
    Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
    Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
    Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!


    Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
    Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
    Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
    Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!

    Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.

    The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?

    Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.

    Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.

    Y'all need to take a ethics class.
    Wtf you aren't even a good troll
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Unfunny View Post
    How dare you send me another box of cereal
    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    congrats you're an inspiration to pedophiles everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuesford View Post
    I'm sure.. 100% clownbomber16 is scum. I'll suck my own dick if I'm wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    if you are still confused i have a stellar comeback which involves more insulting of the french.

  47. #97

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    Your evaluation is based on modern ethics. However, the morality and thought process at the time may have been different.

    Slavery - Slave rebellions were a problem for Ancient Rome and other civilizations, and slavery-related issues continues to be a concern up to this day, so I think we can safely say slavery is an evil act.

    Treatment of women - This may have been a "fact of life" at the time, rather than any intentional ill-will. How about husbands who treat their wives well even though they see their wives as property (i.e. similar to a dog owner treating his dog well)? Keep in mind the norm at the time - the idea of gender equality probably never crossed their minds. These husbands were as good intentioned as the times allowed, are they still evil?

    Religious persecution - The Crusaders and Jihadists believed they were fighting for righteous causes.

    Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - We say that it is OK now, but in the past people were more conservative and uptight about it. Can we say they were objectively wrong?

    Tribes who kill on sight - The tribe I linked lives in voluntary isolation and have a history of defending their isolation by force. They killed a trespassing Christian missionary in 2018 who meant no harm. However, I don't see this is necessarily evil. The tribe, living in isolation, do not subscribe to modern ethics as we do.

    Cannibals - We find it repulsive, but they don't, and I don't think disease is a good metric for morality in this case. If they don't eat infected human brains, does that mean cannibalism's OK?
    Yes of course it's based on modern ethics because Helz is asking about who is the most evil in human history. Moral relativism, which you're advocating for, should not apply here when we are discussing what or who is the most evilest of them all because if it did, then almost none of those things you mentioned were evil at the time. Plus, I don't even know how we got from brutal dictatorships to small minor stuff like divorces and nudity.

    Women were born equally as men regardless of how objectified they were in the past. It takes two to tango - a man and woman both had to work together to create other people that has led to modern civilization today. Men should be frequently awared that they came from their mothers' vaginas and the burden it took on their mind and bodies. Yeah, if men pressured women to be homemakers and stuff back then, that was a product of their time and therefore not clearly evil. But if there involved any verbally and physically abusing, manipulation, gaslighting, etc. their wives into always getting their way are acts of evil.

    Religious persecution - they're BOTH evil. Both religions condemn violence, so I don't see why these extremists get a free pass. There is never a good justification for war and violence in almost any scenario unless it's to avoid even more bloodshed than had war not been declared.

    Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - yes. This is all linked to the rise of feminism. Giving women more choices on how to live their lives is ultimately a moral and alturistic good even though social conservatives will wag their fingers at them. Throughout mankind, even until modern times, men have been celebrated if they had multiple partners or slept around a lot. Yet if women are supposed to be treated as equals, why are they not celebrated for sleeping around a lot, even though this lifestyle for both genders both contribute to the plague and stigmas of STIs?

    Regarding nudity, men have primarily dominated positions of high power and thus, had their sexual fantasy wills imposed on women. They were encouraged to dress in more provocative clothing, but had no say. This is why music videos produced by women with skimpy clothing and nudity is empowerment for them because women now have the choice to make this decision for themselves.

    Again, I've already touched on divorce. They're not bad things, they're good because now women can leave unhappy marriages that could've caused more harm than if they stayed in them. Giving women the power to leave a relationship they regret is not evil. And as long as men can also obtain similar privileges, then it's also equal though there are many biases against men regarding equal guardianship of children.

    Tribes who kill on sight - that is a flawed concept because the act of killing someone is evil not only because it requires one to abandon their humanity to commit the act, but is also unjustified unless it's in self-defence. No one has the legal or ethical right to take away one's life unless it was consented such as in euthanasia. These beasts are uncivilized and should be taught how that it's wrong, but unfortunately those unethical anthropologists are using them as case studies of human isolationism and because they no immunities to modern diseases either. Therefore, while these tribes are evil, we'd probably be even more evil trying to make contact with them and killing off half their tribe.

    Cannibals - no, even then it's not OK for these uncivilized beasts. There is no justification for cannibalism unless in the cases of mass starvation and you need to eat an already dead corpse to stay alive or unless that dead person agreed to be eaten in these extreme scenarios.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Wtf you aren't even a good troll
    I was never a troll. I'm 100% serious, you islamophobe. You think I forgot that you named yourself after wanting to bomb mosques, you human piece of shit?

  48. #98

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.

    An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
    As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
    In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
    If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.

    I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.
    I mean... This is what I'm talking about. It varies, but some ethics do stand the test of time. People in the west hated the social credit system. But they haven't thought about how can a government secure their people with over 1.4 billion population. I, for example, would 100% choose security over privacy. But even with this strict surveillance placed, crimes are still rampant.

    Want a clear comparison?

    Compare China and India. Don't you see why so many people scamming people (the non-techy/oldies) in the west are from India. IF you want an additional references, you may check Jim Browning (not sure if still active) on youtube. But the thing is, they do it because they can. Calling for Interpol would yield benign results, the Indian government is very corrupt. Still won't believe me? Google "India Agricultural reform". FYI, I don't hate Indians, Some of them are good people and personally for me, they are doing good regarding remote technical support.



    Hmmmm. I'm gonna try to counter-argue these points ha ha ha.

    Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:
    • Slavery
      It's not gone. It was just been replaced. There's Sallie Mae and other unending taxes worldwide that you have to pay until you die. You work, there's withholding, don't want to. There's sales tax. Going off the grid? If you have a source of income, there's a tax. Have a property in a secluded forest? still has a tax.
    • Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
      Errr... Romania? Bulgaria? India? Any middle-eastern country (Sunni or Shia ruled), and Congo, Rwanda or most African countries
    • Religious persecution
      Try to spread Christianity in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Let's see if you won't get persecuted.
    • Racial discrimination
      If you're from the USA and you believed this is condemned. Okayyyy. If people really believed this, Trump wouldn't have won in 2017 due to his constant racist remarks.
    • Blackface in entertainment
      Mmmm I'm really not sure how to answer this... The entertainment industry has always have been constantly changing... Say nowadays, people are easily triggered by a simple joke that wasn't that decades ago.
    • Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
      Subjective. Depends on the intent. I have a friend from Papa New Guinea and i always call him N*gger. Whites can call them N*gga if they were close. Again, depends on the intent. Want another example? A handshake is fine right?. But try initiating a handshake to a jew. That's Shomer Negiah.
    • Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes
      Well... Wait what? Fag is cig? Oh well, being near those is cancer.


    Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:
    • Pre-marital sex
      Pre-marital sex? ehh no. Cos royal intermarriage, submission, and rape are common things back in the day.
    • Revealing clothing
      Still depends. Others still need to wear a Hijab or some shit.
    • Nudity in media / Porn
      Wait... Uhh isn't nudity tolerated even before the beginning of CATV? You have American Pie and Porky's as an example.
    • Divorce
      Not sure about this. But I think annulment is more of a common thing back then. But it's so tedious that people just don't do it. hence divorce. But to be honest, this is more of a religious thingy. Remember what Henry the VIII did to get Anne Boleyn?
    Last edited by NotPaopan; November 4th, 2021 at 06:31 PM. Reason: COLOR

  49. #99

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.
    I mean...
    "Redo of healer" is the best selling Anime Blu-ray in Germany.

    And there's going to be a SEASON 2!!!

    If you haven't heard about it. Watch the first 2 episodes of it. It's an Anime.

    Personally, it's disturbing, at the same time it is entertaining and relieving. The plot is also good.

  50. #100

    Re: Who was the most evil person?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotPaopan View Post
    I mean...
    "Redo of healer" is the best selling Anime Blu-ray in Germany.

    And there's going to be a SEASON 2!!!

    If you haven't heard about it. Watch the first 2 episodes of it. It's an Anime.

    Personally, it's disturbing, at the same time it is entertaining and relieving. The plot is also good.
    This 20 or 30 yo Chinese man enjoys a power sex fantasy of rape and revenge of a Japanese cartoon whose ancestors did the same thing to his great-uncle and aunts.

    CRINGE.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •