Who is the most over loved historic person? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who is the most over loved historic person?

Pages : [1] 2

Everko
10-27-2011, 05:59 PM
Somebody who is usully very loved but they do not deserve to be. The person can be from any country or any period of time. Is it a eligious person? or a country leader?

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 06:04 PM
winston churchill

huge imperialist clown. the last major exponent of the crumbling empire that was britain at the time

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 06:05 PM
also barack obama seems to have been hugely overrated 2-3 years ago. i always knew he was a clown

Everko
10-27-2011, 06:06 PM
winston churchill

huge imperialist clown. the last major exponent of the crumbling empire that was britain at the time

strange abraxas. I was going to put him as my answer in the original post. But I didnt want the thread to be just about him. Good answer

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 06:07 PM
strange abraxas. I was going to put him as my answer in the original post. But I didnt want the thread to be just about him. Good answer

im not sure if it's good or bad that you're in agreement with me tbh

buddyholly
10-27-2011, 06:57 PM
Che Guevara. Huge imperialist clown, not to mention egotistical psychopath. Even Fidel had to have him put down.

Just beats out Julian Assange, another megalomaniac.

buddyholly
10-27-2011, 06:59 PM
winston churchill

huge imperialist clown. the last major exponent of the crumbling empire that was britain at the time

Why do you say that? Without him there would be no Western Civiization. Oh wait......................................

jonathancrane
10-27-2011, 07:04 PM
Mother Teresa
Reagan

winston churchill

huge imperialist clown. the last major exponent of the crumbling empire that was britain at the time

Churchill? Really? His role on the WWII compensates all the other shit

Che Guevara.

Yep

Gagsquet
10-27-2011, 07:17 PM
De Gaulle.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 07:24 PM
Churchill? Really? His role on the WWII compensates all the other shit


no, it doesn't.

The_Nadal_effect
10-27-2011, 07:26 PM
Gandhi?

buddyholly
10-27-2011, 07:26 PM
no, it doesn't.

Depends on how you would like the world to be today. Most sane people prefer that to the alternative.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 07:28 PM
Why do you say that? Without him there would be no Western Civiization. Oh wait......................................

how come? if you refer to winston's part in WWII, it wasn't all that important as most brits like to think to give themselves a sense of self-entitlement.

the soviets were the one who virtually won the war at the end. curiously enough, if not for communist russia there would be little of the western civilization as we now know it

LawrenceOfTennis
10-27-2011, 07:30 PM
De Gaulle.

This.
I would put János Kádár next to him. He executed one of my far relatives.

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 07:31 PM
Christopher Columbus. The fact that he effectively started the atlantic slave trade is conveniently forgotten.

Ilovetheblues_86
10-27-2011, 07:31 PM
The Rolling Stones after the 60's.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 07:33 PM
oliver cromwell probly deserves a spot in the list too.

a psychopathic murderer lusting for blood and wealth. typical overempowered brit colonizer.

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 07:34 PM
Columbus sent native locals back to Spain to be paraded naked through Seville and then sold as slaves.

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 07:35 PM
Cromwell is not as loved in Britain as you think.

LawrenceOfTennis
10-27-2011, 07:36 PM
Columbus was terrible for this world.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 07:37 PM
Cromwell is not as loved in Britain as you think.

didnt he rank 10th in a most famous brits ever probly made by some clownish tw show or something?

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 07:39 PM
How many people voted? :shrug: I certainly did not vote for anyone.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 07:42 PM
not sure

this is what wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons

LawrenceOfTennis
10-27-2011, 07:42 PM
What about Napoleon? Guy is treated as a mad-hero genius.
I think he deserves a spot here.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 07:44 PM
what about rafael nadal and novak djokovic?

LawrenceOfTennis
10-27-2011, 07:44 PM
but seriously...

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 07:46 PM
not sure

this is what wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons

Interesting.

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 07:48 PM
What about Napoleon? Guy is treated as a mad-hero genius.
I think he deserves a spot here.

You are right about Napoleonmug. The guy wanted to restart slavery in the West Indies.

Gagsquet
10-27-2011, 07:49 PM
What about Napoleon? Guy is treated as a mad-hero genius.
I think he deserves a spot here.

Disagree. Napoleon is a great.

LawrenceOfTennis
10-27-2011, 07:54 PM
Disagree. Napoleon is a great.

I understand why you say this. I have nothing against France (have relatives there) but Napoleon was a maniac and yes, he wanted slavery.

Orka_n
10-27-2011, 08:04 PM
Aristotle. Guy was a clown.

LawrenceOfTennis
10-27-2011, 08:07 PM
Aristotle. Guy was a clown.

Really? Why?

The_Nadal_effect
10-27-2011, 08:12 PM
Really? Why?

Because he taught men to think. Which resulted in today's world.

Gagsquet
10-27-2011, 08:15 PM
Aristotle. Guy was a clown.

Aristotle is a great philosopher. More brilliant than Platon in my opinion. He could have make some mistakes but he is not a clown. Really not.

Getta
10-27-2011, 08:22 PM
Alexander the "Great".

Getta
10-27-2011, 08:23 PM
Aristotle. Guy was a clown.

when compared to Plato.

Seingeist
10-27-2011, 08:23 PM
Aristotle. Guy was a clown.

Two posters took you seriously...:facepalm:

when compared to Plato.

Can't we love both equally :sad:? That's like picking a favorite child. (But there's no question that Plato is more "fun" or "sexy" than Aristotle).

Both of their contributions were absolutely extraordinary.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 08:28 PM
Two posters took you seriously...:facepalm:



Can't we love both equally :sad:? That's like picking a favorite child. (But there's no question that Plato is more "fun" or "sexy" than Aristotle).

Both of their contributions were absolutely extraordinary.

hmm not really. they both kind of sucked

plato, guided by the mug of socrates (or at least that's what i get based on plato's work), effectively brought down everything that was beautiful about the athenian culture. the unfettered easygoing nature of the greek ethos was bounded by the made up ethical way of thinking brought by socrates and then plato. both huge moralist clowns, it must be said. plato himself was a master of the phalacies and misuse of logic in order to win an arguments. plus, plato most likely suffered from megalomanic delussions. the clown used to think that philosophers like him should rule the city. :facepalm:

aristotle wasn't that bad as the other 2 but a bit of a clown in many ways nonetheless.

Ilovetheblues_86
10-27-2011, 08:28 PM
Its easy to diss Napoleon because he wanted to bring slavery back but lets remember that the end of the slavery was a petition of the jacobines after the Terror era; Napoleon represented the bourgesy interests and was everything but a humanist. He at least mantained the monarchy out of the power for more 15 years :yeah:

Seingeist
10-27-2011, 08:29 PM
hmm not really. they both kind of sucked

:worship:

You never fail to disappoint.

I would have expected nothing less.

Orka_n
10-27-2011, 08:30 PM
Two posters took you seriously...:facepalm::sport:

Sorry, I'll stop trolling.

Gagsquet
10-27-2011, 08:32 PM
:worship:

You never fail to disappoint.

I would have expected nothing less.

That's this kind of post I referred to in the other thread.

abraxas21
10-27-2011, 08:41 PM
:worship:

You never fail to disappoint.

I would have expected nothing less.

sure thing, bud.

given that you can't recognize fake arguements when you read them, i can personally advise you to read 'open society and its enemies' by karl popper for a critical assesment of plato's political leanings and abudant usage of phalacies, and 'genealogy of morality' by friedrich nietzsche (he was a bit of a clown too but his critique of plato was spot on) for an assesment of plato's morals. they might help you out.

then again, i know you're a fundamentalist Christian so im not sure if those books aren't forbidden for you. :help:

out_here_grindin
10-27-2011, 09:16 PM
Martin Luther. OCD nutcase who gets the love for speaking out against one sleezebag(Tetzel) and being the puppet behind the real thinker Melanchthon.

Harmless
10-27-2011, 09:21 PM
The already mentioned Columbus + Richard Lionheart Plantagenet

Pirata.
10-27-2011, 09:30 PM
Mother Teresa :o

Horrible woman, felt that that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus, so she set up "clinics" for poor people and let them suffer rather than treat their illnesses so she could pray over them and "save their souls"

http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

Har-Tru
10-27-2011, 09:34 PM
Columbus gets off by virtue of living in the fifteenth century.

Che Guevara and De Gaulle are good picks.

Sofonda Cox
10-27-2011, 09:35 PM
Mother Teresa :o

Horrible woman, felt that that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus, so she set up "clinics" for poor people and let them suffer rather than treat their illnesses so she could pray over them and "save their souls"


Now that's enterprise!

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 09:37 PM
And Spindoctor thought I was joking with this Nadull>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mother Teresa :shrug:

Ilovetheblues_86
10-27-2011, 10:32 PM
Mother Teresa :o

Horrible woman, felt that that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus, so she set up "clinics" for poor people and let them suffer rather than treat their illnesses so she could pray over them and "save their souls"

http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

It doesnt appeal me when a link is so simple minded and has this kind of paragraph:

Mother Teresa was a conservative Catholic who supported the evil Pope's hard line on abortion, contraception, divorce, women priests, and generally had very bad ideas about women. A woman's highest virtue was to do her duty to the church and her husband – to be a “good” wife and mother and to serve the Catholic church.

So is it bad to be a good wife and mother? :lol:

Also this:

but the psychological reality was precisely that of slave labour. She chose India as her base and got many young girls for her convents. Those young girls/women were not there voluntarily in the psychological sense, they were there because their parents put enormous psychological pressure on them to become nuns. Mother T had a hideously austere set of rules for them, summed up by chastity, obedience and suchlike, and that meant obedience to the church, i.e., her. (One wonders what happened when chastity and obedience came into conflict. I'll bet it was chastity that got sacrificed.)

Off course she couldnt have done different, she was subordinated to the catholic church and all she could hope was to expect some discipline and rigorous laws. We are talking about a world pre-pills. This article was written by a feminist post-60 utopia woman. :o Give better links, next time.

But for me Mother Teresa was a problematic person.

Roadmap
10-27-2011, 10:34 PM
Queen Victoria :o An entire era was named after her :rolleyes:

Orka_n
10-27-2011, 10:44 PM
Mother Teresa :o

Horrible woman, felt that that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus, so she set up "clinics" for poor people and let them suffer rather than treat their illnesses so she could pray over them and "save their souls":haha: Yeah because that's all she did.

You might wanna collect some actual info on the subject before making such statements.

Seingeist
10-27-2011, 11:30 PM
sure thing, bud.

given that you can't recognize fake arguements when you read them, i can personally advise you to read 'open society and its enemies' by karl popper for a critical assesment of plato's political leanings and abudant usage of phalacies, and 'genealogy of morality' by friedrich nietzsche (he was a bit of a clown too but his critique of plato was spot on) for an assesment of plato's morals. they might help you out.


This is getting well off-topic, but fine.

First of all, I am not some kind of strict Platonist that wishes to defend any and all Platonic doctrines. :shrug: He is a brilliant philosopher who has undeniably contributed much to Western thought. There is much to be gained from engaging with Plato, even if we thoroughly reject his overall ontological and/or ethical vision of things.

As for Nietzsche's Genealogy, I've read it and thoroughly enjoyed it, and I appreciate Nietzsche's candor and occasionally brilliant insights. However, needless to say, many of his criticisms fail to hit the mark. He tends to be far more interested in retelling the history of philosophy (and humanity) as a colorful narrative that he can then comment on and critique, rather than engage with the subjects of his critique on their own terms. By and large, his attacks are directed at his own "straw man" versions of Socrates, Christianity, etc.

(But why am I even bothering replying to your useless name-dropping of material that you haven't even read?)

then again, i know you're a fundamentalist Christian so im not sure if those books aren't forbidden for you. :help:

Awwwww snap, dawg, I just got BURNED! :yeah:




P.S. I recognize that you are simply repeating the Magician's epithet "fundamentalist," and it certainly does have that lovely backwoods vibe to it, but I am not, in any strict sense, a "fundamentalist" or part of a "fundamentalist group." "Evangelical" would be a much more accurate term (not that his primary concern or yours was ever accuracy :lol: )

cobalt60
10-27-2011, 11:36 PM
Columbus gets off by virtue of living in the fifteenth century.

Che Guevara and "place name here" are good pricks.

Corrected. And I agree with Che. Don't really think the others are quite up to his standard.

shiaben
10-28-2011, 12:14 AM
Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Bill Clinton, Marilyn Monroe, John Lennon, there should be lots.

My favorites probably Ghandi and John Lennon.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-28-2011, 12:51 AM
I thought you were asking about the most loved person and I was confused by the replies.

rocketassist
10-28-2011, 01:23 AM
Richard Plantagenet wasn't loved. He has a legendary status for his crusades but he was a prick of a man by all account.

Cromwell was a piece of shit, and a dictator who forced his ways down people's throats. The guy had his body dug up and his skull was removed and placed on a pole in London, that's how despised he was.

As for Churchill, the guy's leadership is partly a reason why I'm not talking Deutsch, and don't forget he was a Tory which should make me dislike him, but I can't.

As for the answer- Margaret Thatcher. We're probably having a fucking state funeral when the witch croaks it :rolleyes:

BTW no surprise to see Mr. America buddyholly mention Assange, cause Assange exposed American government.

fast_clay
10-28-2011, 01:31 AM
Freddy Mercury.... contracting HIV in order to die and cement a legacy is a big no no in my book...

buddyholly
10-28-2011, 01:48 AM
the soviets were the one who virtually won the war at the end. curiously enough, if not for communist russia there would be little of the western civilization as we now know it

Those are the important three words. They were not able to do anything until Hitler was sufficiently weakened. If Churchill had wobbled like the rest of Western Europe, then Hitler would have been across Russia to the Pacific in no time.

It would be more correct to say if not for Churchill there would have been no Soviet Union.

Topspindoctor
10-28-2011, 01:53 AM
None. Loving people who are long dead and who you never met is pointless and tedious. It's a pathetic emotion. Always, people seem to look towards the past and try to idolize someone because they need some hero to look up to - what is the point? Look towards the future and live for yourself.

jmjhb
10-28-2011, 01:53 AM
Cromwell stayed at my house once.

My vote goes to Tutankhamun.

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 01:56 AM
None. Loving people who are long dead and who you never met is pointless and tedious. It's a pathetic emotion. Always, people seem to look towards the past and try to idolize someone because they need some hero to look up to - what is the point? Look towards the future and live for yourself.What an awful post.

buddyholly
10-28-2011, 02:06 AM
plato, guided by the mug of socrates . both huge moralist clowns, it must be said. the clown used to think that philosophers like him should rule the city. :facepalm:

aristotle wasn't that bad as the other 2 but a bit of a clown in many ways nonetheless.

The clown thing is getting a bit diluted. But you must have a list of your top 5 non-clowns in history. I am sure we would all like to see it.

Topspindoctor
10-28-2011, 02:17 AM
What an awful post.

Why is it an awful post? Why do you feel the need to love and deify long-dead people? Can't you live for yourself, following your own philosophy, your own rules, your own moral code without idolizing and admiring someone who's been dead for centuries?

One of my favorite quotes is: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him".

Look it up and digest the meaning. We need not to have the attachment to the past and to worship someone. Focus on here and now.

rocketassist
10-28-2011, 02:20 AM
Hitler's decision to actually invade the USSR is the number one reason we're not all speaking German, mind you.

Kolya
10-28-2011, 02:40 AM
John F. Kennedy.

Topspindoctor
10-28-2011, 02:44 AM
Hitler's decision to actually invade the USSR is the number one reason we're not all speaking German, mind you.

It's true. Something like 85% of German casualities in WWII happened on USSR soil. IF Hitler chose to honor the pact he signed with Stalin and decided to crush Europe and North America instead, Germany would probably be #1 superpower in the world right now, despite the fact that Yanks think they "won" WWII just because they jumped in the end for fear that the communists will "liberate" Europe and Japan.

out_here_grindin
10-28-2011, 02:50 AM
Yeah if Hitler hadn't made the most horrendous choice and egregious tactical error of the war then they would have won. What could have been right?

out_here_grindin
10-28-2011, 02:57 AM
John F. Kennedy.

Great answer. Seems like every hollywood movie these days features JFK. Get assassinated in office, live forever in the nation's mind(well unless you are McKinley and Garfield). Plus the whole ridiculous cult that was created by people obsessed with his assassination.

It's like Biggie and Pac. Both get more love because they were killed in their prime.

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 03:03 AM
Why is it an awful post? Why do you feel the need to love and deify long-dead people? Can't you live for yourself, following your own philosophy, your own rules, your own moral code without idolizing and admiring someone who's been dead for centuries?

One of my favorite quotes is: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him".

Look it up and digest the meaning. We need not to have the attachment to the past and to worship someone. Focus on here and now.Can't believe I'm even responding to this. :facepalm: Well, I will explain as simple as possible:

It is possible to learn from the great people of history and get inspiration from them. That may actually enrich our current lives and prevent us from making the same mistakes they did. "Following your own rules" has nothing to do with this at all.

selyoink
10-28-2011, 03:24 AM
Colombus
Reagan
JFK
Robespierre (in certain circles anyway)

shiaben
10-28-2011, 03:26 AM
Those are the important three words. They were not able to do anything until Hitler was sufficiently weakened. If Churchill had wobbled like the rest of Western Europe, then Hitler would have been across Russia to the Pacific in no time.

It would be more correct to say if not for Churchill there would have been no Soviet Union.

Nope...

It was the Siberian cold winter that destroyed Hitler and made him ignorant for even considering such an attempt. It was the Soviet Union who won the war, while Americans and Brits, falsely claimed the victory like cowards. Not to mention, if you want to get technical about it, England and America were both very happy that the Nazis invaded the Soviets, because it was almost like taking out two birds with one stone (Imperialist Germany- big competitor, and Soviet Union- another competitor/rival).

Stalin is no saint, but was clever enough to use Poland as buffer bait to increase the Soviet chance of survival by delaying enough time for a devastating winter to kick in.

Henry Chinaski
10-28-2011, 03:29 AM
Niccolo Mugchiavelli

not really. just the first decent "mug" pun that came into my head

selyoink
10-28-2011, 03:31 AM
Those are the important three words. They were not able to do anything until Hitler was sufficiently weakened. If Churchill had wobbled like the rest of Western Europe, then Hitler would have been across Russia to the Pacific in no time.

It would be more correct to say if not for Churchill there would have been no Soviet Union.

Soviets weren't able to do anything until they put competent generals in the field and because Stalin refused to believe that Hitler was actually going to attack despite the Soviets having spot on intelligence that the opposite was true. I would hardly say Churchill sufficiently weakened Hitler, they proved that the Luftwaffe was not invincible but obviously the British did nothing to weaken the Wehrmacht.

And Churchill himself had this to say about the Soviets:

It is the Russian Army that has done the main work of ripping the guts out of the German Army … In the air and on the ocean and the seas we can maintain ourselves, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being except after several more years that would have been able to maul and break the German Army and subject it to such terrible slaughter and manhandling as has fallen upon the Germans but the Russian Soviet Armies.

shiaben
10-28-2011, 03:32 AM
Why is it an awful post? Why do you feel the need to love and deify long-dead people? Can't you live for yourself, following your own philosophy, your own rules, your own moral code without idolizing and admiring someone who's been dead for centuries?

One of my favorite quotes is: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him".

Look it up and digest the meaning. We need not to have the attachment to the past and to worship someone. Focus on here and now.

I agree, it's not that productive. That's why I hate those paper assignments in school where they always ask to list your three top idols that "influenced" you. I think it's safe to say a lot of who we are actually comes from ourselves, why does it HAVE to come from others? We're suppose to be unique.

selyoink
10-28-2011, 03:33 AM
Stalin is no saint, but was clever enough to use Poland as buffer bait to increase the Soviet chance of survival by delaying enough time for a devastating winter to kick in.

That is one hell of an understatement.

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 03:49 AM
That is one hell of an understatement.I'll say.

Topspindoctor
10-28-2011, 03:57 AM
Can't believe I'm even responding to this. :facepalm: Well, I will explain as simple as possible:

It is possible to learn from the great people of history and get inspiration from them. That may actually enrich our current lives and prevent us from making the same mistakes they did. "Following your own rules" has nothing to do with this at all.

The mistakes they made are irrelevant in our current time and society. Please tell me how your life is enriched by someone from the past? Can't you think for yourself and make your own decisions? Are you honestly saying you are "enriched" by someone who lived a 1000 years ago? Don't get me wrong, those people made an impact on their society and surroundings - they were influential. But idolizing them? Loving them? It's ridiculous. The very thing wrong with people today is that they refuse to move forward.

Caesar1844
10-28-2011, 04:21 AM
None. Loving people who are long dead and who you never met is pointless and tedious. It's a pathetic emotion. Always, people seem to look towards the past and try to idolize someone because they need some hero to look up to - what is the point? Look towards the future and live for yourself.
Signed, the biggest Rafatard on the site.

Kolya
10-28-2011, 04:22 AM
Hitler should have learnt from Napoleon.

Smoke944
10-28-2011, 04:22 AM
Signed, the biggest Rafatard on the site.

Took the words out of my ****ing mouth.

You have to admit, he knows how to troll.

Pirata.
10-28-2011, 04:38 AM
Thanks for the bad rep Seingeist but Mother Teresa was still an awful person :wavey:

habibko
10-28-2011, 04:57 AM
Yeshua bar Yosef

Muhammad ibn Abdillah

habibko
10-28-2011, 05:04 AM
Thanks for the bad rep Seingeist but Mother Teresa was still an awful person :wavey:

indeed she was, Christopher Hitchens made a good documentary to clear this up

78f3xGVR0Ks

short version

GZiKAeJ9mAU

Ilovetheblues_86
10-28-2011, 05:14 AM
Hitchens should have cared about his business, not trying to destroy one of the catholic symbols just because he is an atheist.
Mother Teresa wasnt as good as people think, neither as evil as you want to put out.

She never deserved a nobel, thus, Hitchens wouldnt ahve to lose his time with that "problematic people:

But people want heroes. They want symbols that kindness and charity are still alive in this world. If Theresa serves for inspiration for better acts, the legend would still be alive. With sterilization and antibiotics, next time.

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 05:17 AM
The mistakes they made are irrelevant in our current time and society. Please tell me how your life is enriched by someone from the past? Can't you think for yourself and make your own decisions? Are you honestly saying you are "enriched" by someone who lived a 1000 years ago? Don't get me wrong, those people made an impact on their society and surroundings - they were influential. But idolizing them? Loving them? It's ridiculous. The very thing wrong with people today is that they refuse to move forward.You're still not making any sense. Learning from other people, living or dead, is how we humans best widen our perspective. This makes it easier to make correct and healthy decisions in our lives. It has nothing to do with worshiping a person, like you seem to think. Come on, get a grip. It's not rocket science.

habibko
10-28-2011, 05:27 AM
Hitchens should have cared about his business, not trying to destroy one of the catholic symbols just because he is an atheist.
Mother Teresa wasnt as good as people think, neither as evil as you want to put out.

She never deserved a nobel, thus, Hitchens wouldnt ahve to lose his time with that "problematic people:

But people want heroes. They want symbols that kindness and charity are still alive in this world. If Theresa serves for inspiration for better acts, the legend would still be alive. With sterilization and antibiotics, next time.

I suggest watching the documentary before you defend her

Seingeist
10-28-2011, 06:02 AM
Can't believe I'm even responding to this. :facepalm: Well, I will explain as simple as possible:

It is possible to learn from the great people of history and get inspiration from them. That may actually enrich our current lives and prevent us from making the same mistakes they did. "Following your own rules" has nothing to do with this at all.

Absolutely, and in fact, this isn't going nearly far enough.

Every word that we speak, every concept that we bandy about, every political, scientific, technological element that shapes our lives, originates in one way or another from a multitude of historical persons. If we want to properly and more fully understand the people and society that we are today, we need to study the people that have shaped human history (culturally, intellectually, politically) and brought about our present state.

In other words, it is not simply a matter of getting inspiration from the people of history or learning from their mistakes; it is a matter of learning to understand ourselves inasmuch as we are thoroughly historical beings who are, in a sense, living developments of these "people of history."

Thanks for the bad rep Seingeist but Mother Teresa was still an awful person :wavey:

The trouble, Pirata, is that you do not have the authority to make such a claim (at least, not at all convincingly) according to the source that you've offered, so saying "Mother Teresa was still an awful person" just makes you look a bit ridiculous. It's extremely common knowledge that [Nobel Peace Prize Winner] Mother Teresa spent her life in service to the poor and hungry, denying herself and attempting to alleviate their suffering. If you're going to attempt to refute that, you better have a pretty ironclad reason or source.

You link to an absolute crackpot without any credentials or citations whatsoever who dashes off a few laughably biased and speculative assumptions. Not good enough.

Now look, I realize that there is something really fun and appealing about being iconoclastic and irreverent; it is a hallmark of youth. But to take down well-established cultural heroes or ideas, you need to know what you're talking about, and you don't.

As for the Hitchens "documentary"... :lol:

Yeah, I'm sure the anti-Christian, magazine-editing Hitchens is an unbiased, authoritative source of information. But if, as Habibko says, we need to watch the documentary before we assert what no sane person would deny, then I respond by saying that he needs to read this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Revised-Authorized-Biography/dp/0062026143/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-1) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Theresa-Jose-Luis-Gonzalez-Balado/dp/0892431342/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-15) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Stories-Reflections-Missionaries-Calcutta/dp/0595456499/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&qid=1319779560&sr=8-24) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Biography-Greenwood-Biographies/dp/0313327718/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1319779560&sr=8-28) and watch this (http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Mother-Teresa-Devotion-Archives/dp/B0002V7NZC/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-6). Enjoy :yeah:

finishingmove
10-28-2011, 06:30 AM
Jesus

habibko
10-28-2011, 06:36 AM
Jesus

already mentioned him by his historic name, he was never called "Jesus" in his lifetime

Yeah, I'm sure the anti-Christian, magazine-editing Hitchens is an unbiased, authoritative source of information. But if, as Habibko says, we need to watch the documentary before we assert what no sane person would deny, then I respond by saying that he needs to read this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Revised-Authorized-Biography/dp/0062026143/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-1) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Theresa-Jose-Luis-Gonzalez-Balado/dp/0892431342/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-15) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Stories-Reflections-Missionaries-Calcutta/dp/0595456499/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&qid=1319779560&sr=8-24) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Biography-Greenwood-Biographies/dp/0313327718/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1319779560&sr=8-28) and watch this (http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Mother-Teresa-Devotion-Archives/dp/B0002V7NZC/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-6). Enjoy :yeah:

someone who preached that pregnancy controlling methods are evil has done enough to merit being a morally wicked person, let alone setting houses where people can die of neglect for public image instead of spending that money to help them get properly treated in a hospital

then again you also recommend reading (and following) the Bible

Topspindoctor
10-28-2011, 06:48 AM
The trouble, Pirata, is that you do not have the authority to make such a claim (at least, not at all convincingly) according to the source that you've offered, so saying "Mother Teresa was still an awful person" just makes you look a bit ridiculous. It's extremely common knowledge that [Nobel Peace Prize Winner] Mother Teresa spent her life in service to the poor and hungry, denying herself and attempting to alleviate their suffering. If you're going to attempt to refute that, you better have a pretty ironclad reason or source.

You link to an absolute crackpot without any credentials or citations whatsoever who dashes off a few laughably biased and speculative assumptions. Not good enough.

Now look, I realize that there is something really fun and appealing about being iconoclastic and irreverent; it is a hallmark of youth. But to take down well-established cultural heroes or ideas, you need to know what you're talking about, and you don't.

As for the Hitchens "documentary"... :lol:

Yeah, I'm sure the anti-Christian, magazine-editing Hitchens is an unbiased, authoritative source of information. But if, as Habibko says, we need to watch the documentary before we assert what no sane person would deny, then I respond by saying that he needs to read this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Revised-Authorized-Biography/dp/0062026143/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-1) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Theresa-Jose-Luis-Gonzalez-Balado/dp/0892431342/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-15) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Stories-Reflections-Missionaries-Calcutta/dp/0595456499/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&qid=1319779560&sr=8-24) and this (http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Biography-Greenwood-Biographies/dp/0313327718/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1319779560&sr=8-28) and watch this (http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Mother-Teresa-Devotion-Archives/dp/B0002V7NZC/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1319778884&sr=8-6). Enjoy :yeah:

I might not be an authority on the subject but what one is or is not is an opinion and thus cannot be right or wrong. Therefore, I had to give her a good rep back, not because I necessarily agree or disagree with her statements, but because you seem to to deal in absolutes and decide who is good and who is bad and base your opinion on some ridiculous links trying to reinforce your statements. To me, any religious fanatic is bad, despite all the "good" they do, because ultimately they are bound by the limited rules their "magic book" compels them to obey. My religious father once said - "the most dangerous person is the one who is neutral, because of shifting loyalties" - I disagreed, arguing that the truly dangerous person is the one who has conviction in his actions. Someone who is absolutely certain in what they do and believe they have support of higher power can do things far more "evil" than a simple neutral apathetic atheist. There are stories about mother Teresa who refused to heal the sick because "they would meet God, anyway".

Whether she was "good" or "evil" is entirely up to the person to decide and I am not about to get into that arguement, because I think that both concepts are twisted, ridiculous and totally open to different interpretation. Was Teresa "an awful person"? I truly care not, because everyone has a different idea what good and bad actually is and arguing the point is ultimately pointless.

Seingeist
10-28-2011, 06:52 AM
someone who preached that pregnancy controlling methods are evil has done enough to merit being a morally wicked person

Laughably ridiculous comment. I very much doubt that I agree with Mother Teresa on that issue (the only "pregnancy control" that I am against is abortion), but to say that maintaining a position against birth control makes her "morally wicked" is absolutely ludicrous, no matter how vehemently you may disagree with her.


let alone setting houses where people can die of neglect for public image instead of spending that money to help them get properly treated in a hospital Die of neglect for public image? What the hell are you talking about?

Is "neglect" really the word that you would like to use to characterize Mother Teresa's stance toward the suffering? :haha: :haha: This just keeps getting better.

then again you also recommend reading (and following) the Bible

I certainly do, but not at all in connection to establishing authoritative and unbiased facts about the life of Mother Teresa...:confused: You don't seem to understand how this whole "assertion of facts" and "evidence" thing works.

habibko
10-28-2011, 07:00 AM
I've learned my lesson from the evolution arguments and I'm not going to argue with you and waste my time so this is my last reply to you on this matter, preaching that condoms are an abomination and punishable by God in an AIDS-striken continent like Africa for instance is morally wicked and against the well-being of human beings, I'm not surprised another religious person can't grasp basic moral concepts

if you watched the documentary you would understand what constituted neglect, when proper health care was availble and it was within her powers to help supply it instead of effectively obstructing it for her if not wicked agenda, her delusional one

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 07:49 AM
I've learned my lesson from the evolution arguments and I'm not going to argue with you and waste my time so this is my last reply to you on this matter, preaching that condoms are an abomination and punishable by God in an AIDS-striken continent like Africa for instance is morally wicked and against the well-being of human beings, I'm not surprised another religious person can't grasp basic moral concepts

if you watched the documentary you would understand what constituted neglect, when proper health care was availble and it was within her powers to help supply it instead of effectively obstructing it for her if not wicked agenda, her delusional oneHer wicked agenda, huh. You mean besides helping thousands of people through many decades of work? They all got it wrong, didn't they... all the people who got helped by her and loved her for it, the Nobel prize committee, the Indian government which recognized her and gave her awards... Yeah, you're not sounding like a conspiracy theorist at all.

Trust MTF to come up with this shit. Just because she wasn't a perfect person and you don't agree with all her views she is suddenly evil incarnated. Unbelievable.

habibko
10-28-2011, 07:58 AM
Her wicked agenda, huh. You mean besides helping thousands of people through many decades of work? They all got it wrong, didn't they... all the people who got helped by her and loved her for it, the Nobel prize committee, the Indian government which recognized her and gave her awards... Yeah, you're not sounding like a conspiracy theorist at all.

Trust MTF to come up with this shit. Just because she wasn't a perfect person and you don't agree with all her views she is suddenly evil incarnated. Unbelievable.

I appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth, I didn't say she was evil incarnate, Hitchens questions her motives and showed good reasons for that in his clips, while I don't assume to know if she was indeed wicked inside or not, I can judge her actions and beliefs to be wickedly bad and harming to the well-being of others in many instances as I've already shown

people get things wrong all the time, just because someone has been hailed and acclaimed by many doesn't make him/her automatically deserving of it, pretty sure this is precisely the point of this thread

Seingeist
10-28-2011, 08:03 AM
I might not be an authority on the subject but what one is or is not is an opinion and thus cannot be right or wrong.

Is the bolded assertion an opinion, or can it be right or wrong?

I'll throw you a bone and assume you were just being sloppy, and that what you meant to say is, "what one is or is not morally is just an opinion and thus cannot be right or wrong.

After all, "Roger Federer is a tennis player" is hardly an opinion.

In any case, I've seen your position a million times Topspindoctor, and it is a bankrupt one. But rather than demonstrate where it descends immediately into self-contradiction, I would prefer to look at it in the most superficial way possible to show the kind of position that it puts you in.

Adolf Hitler masterminded the slaughter of millions of Jews. I say he's a pretty swell guy, you say he's evil. They're both mere "opinions" of a reality that is morally neutral, so neither of us is right or wrong. It's just a wash. If I say at a party, "Hitler was a morally excellent individual," and people begin to sneer at me or act like I'm crazy, you will jump in and say, "Stop it everyone! His opinion is no sillier than yours, because neither is right or wrong!"

And do you honestly believe, topspindoctor, that Hitler was a morally neutral individual? Or that his actions were morally neutral?

Would you be willing to say that the **** and torture of innocent people is a "morally neutral" act, or makes the individuals responsible "morally neutral," because any evaluation is a mere opinion that is neither "right" nor "wrong"?

But notice that the problem hits you even earlier than that. Look at the form of the so-called "opinion": "I believe that Hitler was evil." If the italicized portion corresponds to nothing at all in reality (since its affirmation or disaffirmation is neither right nor wrong), how is that even a coherent assertion? How do we attach any meaning to it whatsoever? What can you possibly be attempting to say when you make that statement? "Good" and "Evil" cease to have any meaning. Or, at best, they are tantamount to saying, "I find Hitler agreeable," or "I find him disagreeable," much like flavors of ice cream.


Therefore, I had to give her a good rep back, not because I necessarily agree or disagree with her statements, but because you seem to to deal in absolutes and decide who is good and who is bad

I never claimed to be the ultimate authority on good and evil, and one does not need to make such a claim in order to maintain that good and evil are real or objective. So what "seemed" to be the case to you is quite false.

and base your opinion on some ridiculous links trying to reinforce your statements.

What on earth? :lol: My "ridiculous links" were merely links to books and a DVD on Amazon.com that were biographies on the life of Mother Teresa. :lol: My point was simply that it was preposterous to act like one needs to watch Hitchens's "documentary" before one can safely maintain that Mother Teresa was anything but an "awful person." Anyone can cherry-pick some negative Youtube video and act as though the issue is settled. If one is actually serious about controverting the well-established popular image of Teresa, one would need to do some actual research. But this also requires an actual attention span.

To me, any religious fanatic is bad

By your own admission, you are saying absolutely nothing in this sentence. This is "mere opinion," neither right nor wrong. So I need take it no more seriously than if you had said, "I dislike chocolate ice cream." I reply, for the sake of argument, "to me, any religious fanatic is good." Since neither opinion can be "right" or "wrong," your sentence is no more valid than mine, and there is no reason to prefer it. Odd that you even bother offering "reasons" for your opinion, since they're completely irrelevant. They do nothing to establish the opinion as "more right" or "more wrong."


, despite all the "good" they do, because ultimately they are bound by the limited rules their "magic book" compels them to obey.

Setting aside what is otherwise a discussion-ending contradiction, I nevertheless fail to understand this assertion. "Religious fanatics are "bad" because they are bound by limited rules in a book.".... OK?

How would that in itself make them bad (again, setting aside your own contradictory position, which would render the question pointless)? Would that not entirely depend on the content of the rules? I don't see how being "bound to rules" could, entirely in itself and independently of the specifics of those rules, make a person "bad."


My religious father once said - "the most dangerous person is the one who is neutral, because of shifting loyalties" - I disagreed, arguing that the truly dangerous person is the one who has conviction in his actions. Someone who is absolutely certain in what they do and believe they have support of higher power can do things far more "evil" than a simple neutral apathetic atheist.

And you were both completely wasting your time, according to your position stated above. Neither you nor your father are more "right," and you shouldn't have wasted your breath. No one can do things that are "evil" because there is no such thing.

Re: "bad to have conviction." The only people who have ever stood up to evil in this world (again setting aside your definition, which would render this sentence incoherent) have required great conviction. The people who stood up for the abolition of slavery or for the voting rights of women were individuals of great conviction. While one certainly can have conviction in something that is evil, if it weren't for "conviction," we would all be living under the thumb of tyrants.

There are stories about mother Teresa who refused to heal the sick because "they would meet God, anyway".

There are also stories of Bigfoot and UFO's. Reputable sources, please.

Whether she was "good" or "evil" is entirely up to the person to decide and I am not about to get into that arguement, because I think that both concepts are twisted, ridiculous and totally open to different interpretation. Was Teresa "an awful person"?

What "argument" that you refer to is there to be had? Would you attempt to convince someone else that they find ice cream agreeable? The concepts of "good" and "evil" on your view are not merely "totally open to different interpretation," but are in fact totally vacuous. They don't actually mean anything, since they cannot actually be affirmed or disaffirmed of anything. How could you even explain to someone what "good" and "evil" mean when they cannot actually be attributed to anything, even in theory or hypothetically?

I truly care not, because everyone has a different idea what good and bad actually is and arguing the point is ultimately pointless.

Indeed, which explains why you're in here "arguing what good and bad actually is": a mere opinion.... :confused:

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 08:19 AM
I appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth, I didn't say she was evil incarnate, Hitchens questions her motives and showed good reasons for that in his clips, while I don't assume to know if she was indeed wicked inside or not, I can judge her actions and beliefs to be wickedly bad and harming to the well-being of others in many instances as I've already shown

people get things wrong all the time, just because someone has been hailed and acclaimed by many doesn't make him/her automatically deserving of it, pretty sure this is precisely the point of this threadHitchens is about as neutral as the pope. You have the right to think mother Theresa is overrated of course but you have a funny way of motivating that claim - with only an angled documentary from a man with a clear agenda himself.

habibko
10-28-2011, 08:25 AM
Hitchens is about as neutral as the pope. You have the right to think mother Theresa is overrated of course but you have a funny way of motivating that claim - with only an angled documentary from a man with a clear agenda himself.

if you have a problem with the messenger you can still answer the message, you are free to show me how the first post you quoted of mine is wrong, your only defence of her so far is that so many people thought highly of her and therefore I should do as well, instead of answering the moral issues Hitchens points out

Ilovetheblues_86
10-28-2011, 09:00 AM
Habibko,

First, remember that AIDS only started in the 80s, so an instituion like the Chruch and even Teresa will probably take at least 50 yars to accepth the condoms. And the chruch is right in their own because at least it claims that sex is to be done only after marriage and with your husband/wife. With that logic,. if everyone would have only sex with their partners and after the marriage, AIDS wouldnt be so widespread as it is and people wouldnt need to use the condoms. The world preached by the church is, indeed a better world, if you are not a perv, but we all are. :D Its agenda is coherent itself, and everything that is coherent should be observed, not followed, but considered as coherent- it is indeed a value of it, and usually lasts thorugh the time.

Secondly, Mother Teresa and Higgins both have agendas. She must follow the church agendas and hitchins his bad boy against the church agenda. Or good boy against the church, right? So, anyways, i think you are wron when you point out of the moral issues of Mother Teresa, because for hitchens they are moral issues, but neither they are for Teresa or the church: it makes part of what they idealistically beleive to be good for the society.
What did the XX century teached us more than the XIX however? That ideals wont save the world. Pragmatism, Chicago school, go!

I disagree when you say Mother Teresa had moral issues, but then again you are a doctor, a man of science and a muslim (or not). When you try to help people following an agenda, of course you should leave it to the science, and for the neutral doctors, but at least she wanted to help, so she was just a human trying to do her job.

Cordialmente, sek.

Orka_n
10-28-2011, 09:02 AM
if you have a problem with the messenger you can still answer the message, you are free to show me how the first post you quoted of mine is wrong, your only defence of her so far is that so many people thought highly of her and therefore I should do as well, instead of answering the moral issues Hitchens points outNo, my defense of her is the documented fact that she did indeed take care of thousands of poor people in her charity work. That she during her life was perceived as an empathic human being by most people is a result of that work, of course. I don't have the energy to enter a discussion about her morals, I have a feeling we won't come to an agreement on that subject anyway.

Lopez
10-28-2011, 09:12 AM
I think that any person that is adored/loved is probably overly so just because of the fact that we are all human. So a true answer would be "everyone" ;).

Now to have my say on what is actually meant by the OP:

Mother Teresa (don't want to get into the argument that you guys have though :lol:)
Dalai Lama
Pretty much any Pope
Muhammed
Joseph Smith :lol: (probably not widely adored though...)
Che Guevara (I always cringe when I see some teen wearing a Che-shirt) and other leftist "freedom fighters"
Silvio Berlusconi and other nationalist right-wing nuttjobs :p

Ilovetheblues_86
10-28-2011, 09:14 AM
Seingeist, a show of rhetoric. However I will only imput a curious imput about this:

Re: "bad to have conviction." The only people who have ever stood up to evil in this world (again setting aside your definition, which would render this sentence incoherent) have required great conviction. The people who stood up for the abolition of slavery or for the voting rights of women were individuals of great conviction. While one certainly can have conviction in something that is evil, if it weren't for "conviction," we would all be living under the thumb of tyrants.

Conviction isnt always necessary to fight the evil, specially when the reasoning to abolish the slavery can be used for economical purposes, for the increase of the consumers market, etc. Lets remmeber Robespierre that stood against the slavery with a full conviction in the terms of equalité, fraternité and liberté but then again did many things that people could consider evil. So necessarily, the evil can be extinguished with the own evil, or even without a conviction itself, if you still consider this as stooding against the evil.

Echoes
10-28-2011, 09:48 AM
winston churchill

huge imperialist clown. the last major exponent of the crumbling empire that was britain at the time

+ Remember Mers El-Kebir 1940.

Was my direct thought too.

rocketassist
10-28-2011, 10:53 AM
Who said Robespierre? That man was pure evil.

JolánGagó
10-28-2011, 11:31 AM
Christopher Columbus. The fact that he effectively started the atlantic slave trade is conveniently forgotten.

Totally ignorant statement. He didn't start any slave trade himself, plus slavery was a common thing everywhere. Columbus is a true Great of all times.

I'd say Che Guevara, a rabid murderer and psychopat without the slightest touch with reality.

Castafiore
10-28-2011, 11:55 AM
My vote goes to Che Guevara as well.

All those people putting up his poster and wearing his t-shirt should read up on him.

Roadmap
10-28-2011, 01:15 PM
Totally ignorant statement. He didn't start any slave trade himself, plus slavery was a common thing everywhere. Columbus is a true Great of all times.

I'd say Che Guevara, a rabid murderer and psychopat without the slightest touch with reality.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=christopher%20columbus%20start%20slavery&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcampuspages.cvcc.vccs.edu%2Fpolis %2F2003%2Fnonfiction%2Fwhitney%2520dewitt.amlit.ht m&ei=uZuqTrntMIOA8wOIq6S6Cw&usg=AFQjCNEqzAuQDztFrr3ihJbCAlS-136XAQ Yeah, what a great guy was Muglumbus :rolleyes:

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 02:06 PM
Jesus

wait for seingeist's bad rep

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 02:20 PM
This is getting well off-topic, but fine.

First of all, I am not some kind of strict Platonist that wishes to defend any and all Platonic doctrines. :shrug: He is a brilliant philosopher who has undeniably contributed much to Western thought. There is much to be gained from engaging with Plato, even if we thoroughly reject his overall ontological and/or ethical vision of things.

i don't deny any of that. he was, i believe, quite an intelligent man. doesn't mean i have to agree with him for it or even to say that i find his ideas valuable. by the same token, i can say alexander the great or napoleon were great warfare tacticians but that doesn't mean that i have to appreciatte their contributions.

(But why am I even bothering replying to your useless name-dropping of material that you haven't even read?)
how would you know? everything i metioned it to you, i've already read it. i read a lot of plato during from age 19-21 as i was considering studying philosophy. i always found the work of plato quite repulsive and with a tendency to use phalacies. some times he was entertaining, some times he was boring but overall most of what i read was extremely annoying and logic-defying. the fact that that man had so much recognition in the construction of the western culture speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs in which is at the moment and has been for centuries.[/QUOTE]

then again, i don't expect you to believe me what i have or have not read. who would care anyhow?

P.S. I recognize that you are simply repeating the Magician's epithet "fundamentalist," and it certainly does have that lovely backwoods vibe to it, but I am not, in any strict sense, a "fundamentalist" or part of a "fundamentalist group." "Evangelical" would be a much more accurate term (not that his primary concern or yours was ever accuracy :lol: )

i don't care about the name you choose to define your faith and/or devotion to your religion. for starters, it's not like the magician was the first one to call you a "fundamentalist"...

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 02:26 PM
If Churchill had wobbled like the rest of Western Europe, then Hitler would have been across Russia to the Pacific in no time.

:lol:

ok seriously now, the answer is "not really". as much as nationalist brits like to think, their role in the war was quite small when compared to the soviets'. we can speculate all we want but the most sound conjecture is that the URSS would have won the Great Patriotic War and defeated the Nazis with our without Britain.

but the brits can claim credit for taking revenge and destroying all those german cities when the war was pretty much coming to an end. the bombings of dresde and hamburg are incidents that the fat bastard of churchill should be proud of

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 02:32 PM
The clown thing is getting a bit diluted. But you must have a list of your top 5 non-clowns in history. I am sure we would all like to see it.

i don't keep it but there are many guys i have a lot of respect and/or appreciattion for

peter norman
víctor jara
nick drake
heraclitus
kevin barry
joe mccann

plus probly many others i don't remember at the moment.

Lopez
10-28-2011, 02:51 PM
Jesus

He probably had his flaws like anyone but not enough is known of him really to make any judgement...

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 02:56 PM
i'd like to nominate gandhi to the list too

racist clown

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 03:06 PM
Totally ignorant statement. He didn't start any slave trade himself, plus slavery was a common thing everywhere. Columbus is a true Great of all times.

I'd say Che Guevara, a rabid murderer and psychopat without the slightest touch with reality.

"their Highnesses may see that I shall give them as much gold as they need .... and slaves as many as they shall order to be shipped."

a great indeed

out_here_grindin
10-28-2011, 03:18 PM
i'd like to nominate gandhi to the list too

racist clown

It's fairly easy to go back in time, find any figure and call them a racist . Gandhi did far more for his own people(a large target for racism btw), than any damage done by his acused racism.

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 03:22 PM
It's fairly easy to go back in time, find any figure and call them a racist . Gandhi did far more for his own people(a large target for racism btw), than any damage done by his acused racism.

true but i think most people are unaware of gandhi's views on blacks (or 'kaffirs', as he used to call them) and how he pressured the white south african authorities to segregate them from the indian population.

dude was a segregationist and a racist who sought to help his own people, direagarding the peoples and communities who were even more oppressed than his own.

buddyholly
10-28-2011, 03:26 PM
i don't keep it but there are many guys i have a lot of respect and/or appreciattion for

peter norman
víctor jara
nick drake
heraclitus
kevin barry
joe mccann

plus probly many others i don't remember at the moment.

Interesting!

My list is:

Coco
Bubbles
Bozo
Ronald McDonald
John Wayne Gacy

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 03:29 PM
Interesting!

My list is:

Coco
Bubbles
Bozo
Ronald McDonald
John Wayne Gacy

funny, except that i didnt ask you ;)

Certinfy
10-28-2011, 03:32 PM
Roger Federer.

He's old so I think he counts as historic.

JolánGagó
10-28-2011, 03:32 PM
Interesting!

My list is:

Coco
Bubbles
Bozo
Ronald McDonald
John Wayne Gacy

your cats?

buddyholly
10-28-2011, 04:00 PM
Huge clowns.

habibko
10-28-2011, 04:49 PM
Habibko,

First, remember that AIDS only started in the 80s, so an instituion like the Chruch and even Teresa will probably take at least 50 yars to accepth the condoms. And the chruch is right in their own because at least it claims that sex is to be done only after marriage and with your husband/wife. With that logic,. if everyone would have only sex with their partners and after the marriage, AIDS wouldnt be so widespread as it is and people wouldnt need to use the condoms. The world preached by the church is, indeed a better world, if you are not a perv, but we all are. :D Its agenda is coherent itself, and everything that is coherent should be observed, not followed, but considered as coherent- it is indeed a value of it, and usually lasts thorugh the time.

no the catholic church isn't right in their own and justification of their wicked doctrines only serves to prolong the misery their teachings serve to inflict, whether the constitution of marriage serves a purpose against AIDS spreading or not has no implications on whether condom usage would make life better for people or not, especially when a deadly sexually transmitted disease is thrown in the formula

Secondly, Mother Teresa and Higgins both have agendas. She must follow the church agendas and hitchins his bad boy against the church agenda. Or good boy against the church, right? So, anyways, i think you are wron when you point out of the moral issues of Mother Teresa, because for hitchens they are moral issues, but neither they are for Teresa or the church: it makes part of what they idealistically beleive to be good for the society.
What did the XX century teached us more than the XIX however? That ideals wont save the world. Pragmatism, Chicago school, go!

so because they believe what they are doing is good it nullifies the moral weight of their actions? I think that anyone who isn't brainwashed by quasi-divine teachings can see how their teachings and ways of practice were bad for the well-being of others and still are to this day, doesn't take a Hitchens to see it

I disagree when you say Mother Teresa had moral issues, but then again you are a doctor, a man of science and a muslim (or not). When you try to help people following an agenda, of course you should leave it to the science, and for the neutral doctors, but at least she wanted to help, so she was just a human trying to do her job.

Cordialmente, sek.

of course I wouldn't want people including young children to be denied proper hospital care based on the scientific method and instead be gathered in a big dark room where syringes aren't even properly disinfected for them to die in, it takes a human being to protest against this horrible way of treatment instead of using charity money to build a hospital or pay for their treatments in one, not necessarily a doctor or a man of science.

Gagsquet
10-28-2011, 05:10 PM
Horatio Nelson.

Roadmap
10-28-2011, 05:31 PM
Horatio Nelson.

Still bitter? :wavey:

Globetrotter
10-28-2011, 05:38 PM
Hitler should have learnt from Napoleon.
Napoleon is probably my favorite figure in history and the one I've read most books and watched most films about. I think he was mentioned here once on page 1 or something, anyway I think if any he is the most underrated historic person. His influence on the modern world is overwhelming, yet he is known as some crazy warmonger and even compared to Hitler by some people (I am well aware that you didn't do that).

Well, I think Hitler couldn't have learnt from Napoleon, because they were in no ways comparable, not even their Russian campaigns were comparable. One was a dumb Jew hater, the other maybe the greatest military genius of the modern era.

Ilovetheblues_86
10-28-2011, 06:07 PM
no the catholic church isn't right in their own and justification of their wicked doctrines only serves to prolong the misery their teachings serve to inflict, whether the constitution of marriage serves a purpose against AIDS spreading or not has no implications on whether condom usage would make life better for people or not, especially when a deadly sexually transmitted disease is thrown in the formula



so because they believe what they are doing is good it nullifies the moral weight of their actions? I think that anyone who isn't brainwashed by quasi-divine teachings can see how their teachings and ways of practice were bad for the well-being of others and still are to this day, doesn't take a Hitchens to see it



of course I wouldn't want people including young children to be denied proper hospital care based on the scientific method and instead be gathered in a big dark room where syringes aren't even properly disinfected for them to die in, it takes a human being to protest against this horrible way of treatment instead of using charity money to build a hospital or pay for their treatments in one, not necessarily a doctor or a man of science.

1. First of all Mother Teresa was born in 1910 and when AIDS arrived, she was already 70 years old. So you cant accuse her of not defending the use of condoms because simply that disease spread because people act against the church rules . AIDS is the disease that creates misery, not the church. The church didnt create AIDS, and the reason why AIDS is so widespread is because people dont follow the church rules. But this is an unreal scenario, yess I know. To expect everyone to follow the churches rules is bullshit, and the church should change its policy, however, can we say a guard is morally evil if he kills someone that should be killed because he was a thief in a country that gives death punishment for thieves? Moral and law only interferes into themselves in the process of creating the law itself. After the law is created, it should be obeyed. Kelsen.
But dont owrry my friend, around 2030 or something the church will defend the condoms because they cant afford losing so much followers.

2 and 3. Like Seingeist said, and then again I recommend you to read his big post about morality, what is moral for us can be amoral to the other. And about being denied a scientifical treatment, there are places on earth where people simply cant have a full medical assistant or even be treated in the rational, scientific way. Of course I dont agree with Mother Teresa denying some medicine for people that were dying, but then again, maybe if Mother Teresa wasnt there the person would simply die anyway. So, I mean, in areas where people had no medical assistence at all, sometimes actions of Mother Teresa can help, however they arent recommended. Now lets agree a bit and say she is overrated, ok. :rolleyes: Mother Teresas wont do any harm again after the catholic church find an alliance with science.

Seingeist
10-28-2011, 07:57 PM
Seingeist, a show of rhetoric. However I will only imput a curious imput about this:

i.e. I did not read/understand your post, but noted that it was quite lengthy.

Conviction isnt always necessary to fight the evil, specially when the reasoning to abolish the slavery can be used for economical purposes, for the increase of the consumers market, etc. Lets remmeber Robespierre that stood against the slavery with a full conviction in the terms of equalité, fraternité and liberté but then again did many things that people could consider evil. So necessarily, the evil can be extinguished with the own evil, or even without a conviction itself, if you still consider this as stooding against the evil.

Exception does not disprove the rule, but in this case, I am not even sure that I fully understand it as an exception. Robespierre was neither the first nor the most significant opponent of slavery, and even if he did do other "evil" things, that does not necessarily nullify any deeply held conviction he might have had that slavery is an evil that must be abolished.

The "economical purposes" is a little strange. At least as far as American slavery is concerned, it made very little economic sense to end slavery. What could be better than free labor?

But I am honestly a bit exasperated at the things that I am defending at this point. Who would have thought that the assertions "Mother Teresa was a good person/did a lot of good" and "It takes courage and conviction to stand against evil" would be such controversial claims? :lol:


2 and 3. Like Seingeist said, and then again I recommend you to read his big post about morality, what is moral for us can be amoral to the other.

And this proves what I said above about "misunderstanding," because this is actually the opposite of the point that I was making. Of course people disagree about what is right and what is wrong, but that does not for one second mean that no one is right and no one is wrong, or that no person or action is actually good or evil. Morality is not illusory or relative.

Ivanatis
10-28-2011, 08:06 PM
Probably not the most, but my first thought was Kissinger whose body of honors makes me shudder.

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 08:14 PM
Probably not the most, but my first thought was Kissinger whose body of honors makes me shudder.

ah... henry, the kiss, kissinger.

the fact that that clown won the nobel peace prize speaks volumes about the mugginess associated to the 'award'.

The_Nadal_effect
10-28-2011, 08:24 PM
A point of view:

One of the great ironies, I find in this whole 'I hate Mother Teresa' shebang is that she never set out calling herself a 'saint'. What if she were a just a person - like anyone of us - who had an inspiration and followed on that inspiration? Except, her inspiration - which was perhaps her desire to ease the suffering of human beings around her took place in a public sphere. Obviously, in India then - as it is now - there was much poverty, and in a world of cynicism, where most people habitually pass by the dying on the streets without feeling anything, a person bending down and holding the sufferer and feeding water or embalming him with care does stand out like a black dot on a white sheet. All I am trying to say is all of us do things we like - or at least so is the tendency. So instead of seeing the Teresa juggernaut as rolling towards ill-fashioned, malignant, immoral way towards sainthood and superstardom; why can't we see her as another normal person following her way of life, which was like the rest of us, full of warts as well. Immediately, more than half of the criticism against her falls flat, doesn't it?

Extremization of one's sincere inspiration always comes out in the open sooner or later, and everyone tends to scrutinize that with a magnifying glass, so to say. Take more popular examples from the world around: The more class Federer showed, the more lack of class people sought in him. The more humble Nadal went, the more crap they saw in his 'humility'. Its the same thing, really. It all comes with being 'great'.

Roadmap
10-28-2011, 08:28 PM
The subject of Mother Teresa gives me another idea for this thread. Princess Diana. Now I know she died a terrible death but so do many 'normal' people. There can be no doubt that she is over loved.

Roadmap
10-28-2011, 08:30 PM
I am fed up of hearing about Princess Diana. She means nothing to me and how I live my life :shrug:

abraxas21
10-28-2011, 08:57 PM
i dare say 99% of the loved people are actually over-loved

Helevorn
10-28-2011, 09:19 PM
Giuseppe Garibaldi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi) is probably one of the most heavily overloved and overpraised people in the last two millennia. Karol Wojtyla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtyla) is another one, and so is the large majority of every general/head of state/soldier involved in any kind of war, starting from the enormous massacres that Ancient Roman armies did in the whole European region.

selyoink
10-28-2011, 10:07 PM
The "economical purposes" is a little strange. At least as far as American slavery is concerned, it made very little economic sense to end slavery. What could be better than free labor?

Slave labor does not equal good economics. The Gulag lost money money on a massive scale and was never an economical success at any point in time.

Seingeist
10-29-2011, 12:13 AM
Slave labor does not equal good economics. The Gulag lost money money on a massive scale and was never an economical success at any point in time.

Getting off-topic to reply to this, and I certainly don't pretend to be any kind of expert on the economics of slavery, but I imagine that there were other reasons that the Gulag was not exactly a roaring financial success. That is to say, I doubt that if they suddenly started paying their laborers, everything would have magically turned around.

Moreover, I did very deliberately qualify my statement, "at least in the case of American slavery."

We did not fight the bloodiest war in our nation's history because the Southern states had such a massive raging hatred of black people; there were major economic interests that sought to keep slavery intact. Many southerners recognized that their very livelihoods and fortunes were in serious jeopardy.

Caesar1844
10-29-2011, 12:24 AM
Slave labor does not equal good economics. The Gulag lost money money on a massive scale and was never an economical success at any point in time.
It also induces technological laziness. The abolition of slavery resulted in an agricultural revolution, because suddenly farmers were having to pay market rates for their labour. Long term end result? Much more efficient (and economically rewarding) farming methodologies.

Slavery also destroys the value of the labour pool, making it impossible for many people to find employment. Why pay someone to do something that you can get a slave to do for free? The social and economic problems caused by slavery were one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Roman Republic.

Seingeist
10-29-2011, 12:49 AM
It also induces technological laziness. The abolition of slavery resulted in an agricultural revolution, because suddenly farmers were having to pay market rates for their labour. Long term end result? Much more efficient (and economically rewarding) farming methodologies.

Slavery also destroys the value of the labour pool, making it impossible for many people to find employment. Why pay someone to do something that you can get a slave to do for free? The social and economic problems caused by slavery were one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Roman Republic.

Indisputably. But these are all "macro" considerations, so to speak. These phenomena require time to develop and they do so on a large scale. People always fight to protect their own personal, immediate economic interests. Your average plantation owner is not thinking about the future of agricultural revolution, he is thinking about all of the money that he will immediately lose when he has to start paying his laborers. I imagine that for many of them, it doomed the enterprise entirely, even though it was indeed better for everyone in the long run.

I didn't feel the need to draw that distinction because my original point was simply that I doubted that Robespierre's objection to slavery was primarily on economic grounds--he could hardly have been motivated by his concern for agricultural revolution or the value of the labor pool. :)

Naudio Spanlatine
10-29-2011, 12:56 AM
Ganhni(that guy from india, i forgot how to spell his name):shrug:

Seingeist
10-29-2011, 01:13 AM
Ganhni(that guy from india, i forgot how to spell his name):shrug:

You're posting this on the internet. It takes literally five seconds or less to find out. In fact, the time that it took you to type out "(that guy from india, i forgot how to spell his name):shrug:" would have been sufficient to confirm how to spell his name.

It's even been mentioned several times already in this very thread. :sad: :facepalm:

My heart is breaking.

Caesar1844
10-29-2011, 01:33 AM
I didn't feel the need to draw that distinction because my original point was simply that I doubted that Robespierre's objection to slavery was primarily on economic grounds--he could hardly have been motivated by his concern for agricultural revolution or the value of the labor pool. :)
You don't think a French revolutionary would be concerned with preserving the economic value of a peasant's labour?

Given how much the French revolutionaries took their cues from republican Rome, I'd have thought Robespierre would have been well aware of the dangers that free labour posed to those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid.

gepopes
10-29-2011, 01:39 AM
I would like to accord my first place to Karl der Große..or Charles the Great.
Today he is regarded not only as the founding father of both French and German monarchies, but also as a Pater Europae (father of Europe)

Seingeist
10-29-2011, 01:41 AM
You don't think a French revolutionary would be concerned with preserving the economic value of a peasant's labour?

Not so much that he wouldn't be concerned as that I don't see the reason that he would have necessarily made that connection. Economic theory has developed quite a bit (and become more widespread) since the late 18th century.

Then again, as I said earlier, I certainly don't pretend to be any kind of expert. I frankly don't have any idea what the extent of Robespierre's economic knowledge was; if you would like to make a case that his primary motivation to combat slavery was related to macroeconomic concerns, you are free to do so, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.

delboy
10-29-2011, 02:09 AM
Someone english

Naudio Spanlatine
10-29-2011, 02:24 AM
You're posting this on the internet. It takes literally five seconds or less to find out. In fact, the time that it took you to type out "(that guy from india, i forgot how to spell his name):shrug:" would have been sufficient to confirm how to spell his name.

It's even been mentioned several times already in this very thread. :sad: :facepalm:

My heart is breaking.

my gosh im sry for not spelling his name correct please forgive me for my sins:rolleyes::o

Seingeist
10-29-2011, 02:45 AM
my gosh im sry for not spelling his name correct please forgive me for my sins:rolleyes::o

It's not a sin so much as an intentional assault on literacy. Not the misspelling itself; that's not at all the problem. ;)

It's that you expended as much effort to point out that you don't know how to spell it as it would have taken to learn how to spell it correctly.

That tends to send the message, "I not only do not care, but am actively against language and communication." That's what cuts me to the quick. :sad:

Topspindoctor
10-29-2011, 02:57 AM
Adolf Hitler masterminded the slaughter of millions of Jews. I say he's a pretty swell guy, you say he's evil. They're both mere "opinions" of a reality that is morally neutral, so neither of us is right or wrong. It's just a wash. If I say at a party, "Hitler was a morally excellent individual," and people begin to sneer at me or act like I'm crazy, you will jump in and say, "Stop it everyone! His opinion is no sillier than yours, because neither is right or wrong!"

Hitler was an evil man according to pretty much everyone today - yet in his time, amongst his people, he was a hero for ending Germany's economic crisis and making it a superpower. Millions absolutely believed in him and worshipped him. That is my whole point. Each influential person in history would be considered a hero and a villain in certain circles. I am sure Richard the Lionheart was a hero to his people and Saladin a villian and the other way around. See, where I am heading with this? Good and Evil and purely human concepts

And do you honestly believe, topspindoctor, that Hitler was a morally neutral individual? Or that his actions were morally neutral?

My opinion = slaughter of millions of innocent people = wrong. (no, I don't care whether they are Blacks, Jews, Whites, Asians or Martians). But that is strictly my opinion - an opinion of just one person. Millions might still hold different views today. Hitler at his heart was akin to religious fanatics burning millions of women alive because they were "witches" in the middle ages. Hitler believed he was cleansing the world from "inferior" races just like ancient witch hunters and inquisitors believed they were cleansing the world from "evil". That is why my belief is that fanatics with absolute views are so dangerous.

Would you be willing to say that the **** and torture of innocent people is a "morally neutral" act, or makes the individuals responsible "morally neutral," because any evaluation is a mere opinion that is neither "right" nor "wrong"?

See above and re-read your history. Jews, weren't even people to Hitler. He felt no more remorse about killing them just I like I don't feel remorse about calling pest control and exterminating ants and roaches. You can argue against it, but it's true. It's not morally neutral, wrong or right. It's just an opinion of a fanatic and his followers believing he is being guided by a higher power.

To me, personally, Hitler does not deserve the celebrity status he's getting. The Church - tortured and murdered millions over the last fifteen hundred years and people still attend it on Sunday and nobody seems offended - while someone claiming to worship Hitler would promptly find themselves an outcast or even prosecuted!

But notice that the problem hits you even earlier than that. Look at the form of the so-called "opinion": "I believe that Hitler was evil." If the italicized portion corresponds to nothing at all in reality (since its affirmation or disaffirmation is neither right nor wrong), how is that even a coherent assertion? How do we attach any meaning to it whatsoever? What can you possibly be attempting to say when you make that statement? "Good" and "Evil" cease to have any meaning. Or, at best, they are tantamount to saying, "I find Hitler agreeable," or "I find him disagreeable," much like flavors of ice cream.

Hitler is neither agreeable or disagreeable. He just was, just like eveything else in this world. The need to attach morals and ethics to every action is a trait that interferes with pragmatism and logic and ultimately delays progress. Was Hitler evil? I have my opinion about that, which is yes. Was Hitler good? - a lot of people today will STILL secretely say yes. Are both opinions meaningless? Yes, because those are mere morals and ethics - a human invention and ultimately pointless.

Kolya
10-29-2011, 03:19 AM
People tend to forget that Himmler and Heydrich were the real driving force in the extermination of the Jewish people. The organisation of the systematic killings were pretty much set up by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference.

Fortunately Heydrich was killed early, who knows how many lives were saved.

Seingeist
10-29-2011, 04:16 AM
Hitler was an evil man according to pretty much everyone today - yet in his time, amongst his people, he was a hero for ending Germany's economic crisis and making it a superpower. Millions absolutely believed in him and worshipped him. That is my whole point. Each influential person in history would be considered a hero and a villain in certain circles. I am sure Richard the Lionheart was a hero to his people and Saladin a villian and the other way around. See, where I am heading with this? Good and Evil and purely human concepts

Yes, I see exactly "where you're headed with this," and I dealt with it already at length. The consequence is that "good" and "evil" cease to have any meaning whatsoever. You do not address that point anywhere here and in fact continue to contradict yourself throughout.

Moreover, apart from the (already addressed) problems with the bare assertion "No one is right or wrong/ Good and evil are purely human," the above paragraph additionally fails as an argument:

Disagreement does not establish relativism.

I may say that the earth is round and you may disagree and say that it is flat. Does it follow logically that neither one of us is correct? Does our disagreement mean that the earth is neither flat nor round, and that, in fact, there is not even any such thing as "flatness" or "roundness"?

No more than "moral disagreement" serves as any kind of proof for the "illusoriness" or "relativism" or morality. You can assert the latter if you wish (and descend inevitably into contradiction or nonsense), but you cannot attempt to prove it by virtue of disagreement.


My opinion = slaughter of millions of innocent people = wrong.

And your "opinion" contains no content at all, since "wrong" has no meaning. It corresponds to nothing. You've said absolutely nothing with that statement. Do you appreciate the position that this puts you in yet?

At best, you can rephrase and say, "I find the slaughter of millions disagreeable."

But that is strictly my opinion - an opinion of just one person. Millions might still hold different views today. Hitler at his heart was akin to religious fanatics burning millions of women alive because they were "witches" in the middle ages. Hitler believed he was cleansing the world from "inferior" races just like ancient witch hunters and inquisitors believed they were cleansing the world from "evil".

And the beauty of it is, on your view, there is absolutely no way to adjudicate between the differing opinions. (As a matter of fact, there is no way that we can even make sense of the two opinions, let alone judge between them.) You cannot condemn Hitler for his actions because you have no grounds on which to do so. You can't say that he or anything that he did is "bad" since "bad" is merely a "human concept" that is neither right nor wrong.

That is why my belief is that fanatics with absolute views are so dangerous.

But what on earth can you mean by "dangerous" here? What "danger" does Hitler and those like him pose? It is pretty difficult to put one's finger on a particular danger when value judgments are strictly impossible (by virtue of the fact that nothing is actually "good" or "bad").


See above and re-read your history. Jews, weren't even people to Hitler. He felt no more remorse about killing them just I like I don't feel remorse about calling pest control and exterminating ants and roaches.

Re-read? My comment about the torture of innocent people was not meant as a reference to Hitler, but this was obscured because one of my words was censored(?).

In any case, sure, Hitler felt no remorse, and if the view of Topspindoctor holds, he needed feel no remorse. His killing those people was no different morally than your exterminating ants and roaches. They are both morally neutral acts.

I think this is a good moment to take stock of where we are at this point:

A moral worldview that cannot differentiate morally between the extermination of roaches and the genocide of a race of people is an utterly bankrupt worldview. Surely any reasonable person would agree to this.

You can argue against it, but it's true. It's not morally neutral, wrong or right.

Actually, not "wrong or right" = "morally neutral." So yeah, it is "morally neutral." It has no moral bearing or aspect whatsoever. (In fact, as you might have realized by now, "morality" itself loses coherence as a concept when there is no "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong.")

To me, personally, Hitler does not deserve the celebrity status he's getting. The Church - tortured and murdered millions over the last fifteen hundred years and people still attend it on Sunday and nobody seems offended - while someone claiming to worship Hitler would promptly find themselves an outcast or even prosecuted!

It's a mystery to me why I am still bothering to talk to someone who makes statements like these.

Then again, you have never shown your grasp of world history to be any more sound than that of abraxas, so I should hardly be surprised at such comments.

"Tortured and murdered millions"... :haha: Don't get me wrong, even 1 death at the hands of the Inquisition is inexcusable and indefensible.

However, unfortunately for people like you who love to make claims like these, there actually were relatively extensive records kept. Number of deaths during the centuries-long run of the Inquisition is estimated at about 3000-5000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls), out of around 125,000 people who went before the councils.

Again, absolutely appalling and indefensible (the horrifying offspring of a marriage between religious and state authority; those greedy for the latter inevitably abuse the former), but it is a far cry from "tortured and murdered millions." Additionally, as you seem not to be aware, the "Church" (because why bother being precise?) is no longer in the business of torturing and murdering people. :wavey:

Of course, allow me to qualify. I am able to say "appalling" and "indefensible." You are not, because you have no grounds on which to make those claims. If nothing is good/evil, or right/wrong, then you have moral way to criticize the Inquisition.

It's actually strange, you're trying so desperately to slander "the Church," but it is entirely pointless for you to do so (on your own stated view). The "Church" has never done anything "right" or "wrong," and neither has anyone else, for that matter.

Hitler is neither agreeable or disagreeable. He just was, just like eveything else in this world. The need to attach morals and ethics to every action is a trait that interferes with pragmatism and logic and ultimately delays progress. Was Hitler evil? I have my opinion about that, which is yes. Was Hitler good? - a lot of people today will STILL secretely say yes. Are both opinions meaningless? Yes, because those are mere morals and ethics - a human invention and ultimately pointless.

"interferes with logic"...:lol:

Your blatant contradictions all over your posts (even above - "Was Hitler evil? Yes" "[But this is] meaningless") suggest quite the opposite.

And "delays progress" is yet another contradiction. You can't really say that something constitutes "human progress" when there is no such thing as a valid value judgment (morally speaking). We cannot say, "Humanity is in a better position" because there is no such thing as "better," ultimately. No "good" or "bad" means no "better" or "worse" either. :shrug:

But for the sake of argument, let us yet again suspend your position because it would render the following considerations on "human progress" completely nonsensical.

Do you truly believe that the way for humanity to progress is to eliminate all moral and ethical categories, thinking, and restraints? Does a quick survey of human history (all the wars, struggle, lust for power and self-aggrandizement, wide-scale horrors like the Holocaust) suggest to you that removing any and all moral sensibility in the world is a good idea?

And I ask you once more, can you truly look at the items in my parenthesis and say that there is nothing, in actuality or in itself, bad or wrong with them?

If you can, you are in an appalling state of "bad faith" vis-a-vis your own intuitions and conscience.

Topspindoctor
10-29-2011, 05:24 AM
Yes, I see exactly "where you're headed with this," and I dealt with it already at length. The consequence is that "good" and "evil" cease to have any meaning whatsoever. You do not address that point anywhere here and in fact continue to contradict yourself throughout.

I agree I might have contradicted myself multiple times, but I think that you're smart enough to see my point. Fact is, I am human. Certain actions from certain people elicit certain emotions from me and I am unable think rationally, to "play the devil's advocate" so to speak. However, I still hold on to my opinion.


Disagreement does not establish relativism.

I already tried to tell you, I neither agree or diagree in most of the "controversial" debates (or at least try to!) . Relativism argues that all points of the argument are valid

I may say that the earth is round and you may disagree and say that it is flat. Does it follow logically that neither one of us is correct? Does our disagreement mean that the earth is neither flat nor round, and that, in fact, there is not even any such thing as "flatness" or "roundness"?

Ah, but you're bringing up something that has been 100% proven by cold science and had no place in the discussion where subtle things like ethics and morals are concerned. Saying "earth is round" is the same as saying "fire will burn you". Saying "Stalin was a saint" and "Hitler was a visionary" cannot exactly be proven, unless you bring different views of interpretation which differs from person to person. Neither of the above can be proven by formulae or science, that is what makes it an opinion and that is what makes it a topic worthy of debate.

A more worthy comparison would be if I said: "Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting", and you disagreed. Neither of us are right or wrong and neither point can be proven in each other's favor by physics, biology or chemistry. That is my whole view on ethics in general: You cannot prove someone's opinion is more valid by cold, logical undeniable formulae.

No more than "moral disagreement" serves as any kind of proof for the "illusoriness" or "relativism" or morality. You can assert the latter if you wish (and descend inevitably into contradiction or nonsense), but you cannot attempt to prove it by virtue of disagreement.

Like I said earlier, my post my contain contradictions and quite frankly idiotic statements. But I still think that you understand my overall point in regards to morality and ethics: it is a can of worms than can be argued forever. What is right and wrong are purely subjective. A hero will always be a villain to someone else. A villain might be hero to someone thinking closer to his/her philosophy. Stalin and Hitler might be villains today, but millions of people shouted their name and threw themselves to their deaths, truly believing that they were divine beings guiding mankind to better future.


And your "opinion" contains no content at all, since "wrong" has no meaning. It corresponds to nothing. You've said absolutely nothing with that statement. Do you appreciate the position that this puts you in yet?

I said that "wrong" OR "right" has no meaning when put in a certain context. I am 100% certain you are intelligent enough to understand my point and yet you choose to avoid it. A person whose actions are "wrong" can always be justified in someone else's eyes, just like a person who is doing "right" things will be condemned by other group of people. Thus, "right" or "wrong" ultimately has no meaning - it's something highly intelligent species like humans created to guide their society to stop is from descending into anarchy. Attaching petty values like "good" and "evil" to something is akin to saying "an earthquake is evil because it killed 100,000 people", while in reality it is not. It just is. Like everything in the world.

At best, you can rephrase and say, "I find the slaughter of millions disagreeable."

Once again, I find it disagreeable because I am human, with human intelligence and human emotions, which guide me. Thus my contradictions, my often dumb statements and my lack of pragmatism. I hate racism, genocide and wars because ultimately I am guided by emotions, while in reality, none of those matter at all when you consider the big picture. NOTHING that happens today will matter in a few centuries, so in the end the debates about ethics and morality are pointless.


And the beauty of it is, on your view, there is absolutely no way to adjudicate between the differing opinions. (As a matter of fact, there is no way that we can even make sense of the two opinions, let alone judge between them.) You cannot condemn Hitler for his actions because you have no grounds on which to do so. You can't say that he or anything that he did is "bad" since "bad" is merely a "human concept" that is neither right nor wrong.

That is my whole point. It may not be politically correct or even get me in trouble with the law in socialist European countries, but it's the truth. Icondemn Hitler because Idisagree with his views and philosophies. However, MYopinions is as meaningless as someone who says Hitler was a great person. Do you see my point? You can't say with absolute certainty that someone was "evil". And you can't bring absolutely proven scientific facts like "earth is round" into the argument because the question of ethics, morality and good and evil cannot be put into scientific formulae.

But what on earth can you mean by "dangerous" here? What "danger" does Hitler and those like him pose? It is pretty difficult to put one's finger on a particular danger when value judgments are strictly impossible (by virtue of the fact that nothing is actually "good" or "bad").

Conviction. It's not necessarily the question of good and evil, but someone driven by what they percieve a "higher power" will do unthinkable things. A person who is convicted of their actions will not hesitate to drive a dagger through a heart of a baby. Once again, you will try to catch me in a logic trap: "IF there is no good/evil, how can a murder of a baby be considered such?" I'll say that it's not necessarily the action, but the thought process itself. A person convinced in their actions loses thinking and commits acts that are neither logical or pragmatic.


A moral worldview that cannot differentiate morally between the extermination of roaches and the genocide of a race of people is an utterly bankrupt worldview. Surely any reasonable person would agree to this.

One again you bombard me with meaningless terms like "bankrupt". If you detatch yourself from those ideals and the way of thinking, you'll understand my point. To Hitler, the people he exterminated were no better than insects. Is it wrong? In MY view, YES. Once again, that is MY opinion.

habibko
10-29-2011, 05:46 AM
I recommend watching this lecture topspindoctor, it shows that science can actually have a say on morality and it isn't true that there isn't absolute right or wrong

sTKf5cCm-9g

Caesar1844
10-29-2011, 07:32 AM
Not so much that he wouldn't be concerned as that I don't see the reason that he would have necessarily made that connection. Economic theory has developed quite a bit (and become more widespread) since the late 18th century.
It doesn't take a genius economist to know that if you have slaves doing menial labour for free, the big losers are the peasants and unskilled labourers who make their living doing that work.

I'm pretty sure the French revolutionaries could have made that connection.

abraxas21
10-29-2011, 07:37 AM
It's not a sin so much as an intentional assault on literacy. Not the misspelling itself; that's not at all the problem. ;)

It's that you expended as much effort to point out that you don't know how to spell it as it would have taken to learn how to spell it correctly.

That tends to send the message, "I not only do not care, but am actively against language and communication." That's what cuts me to the quick. :sad:

oh dear :facepalm:

i didn't pay much attention to you before but congratulations: i now realize you're becoming the most arrogant and annoying poster of this whole forum. not sure if this is part of your ACC campaign or perhaps the Church is giving you too much free time lately

abraxas21
10-29-2011, 07:53 AM
you have never shown your grasp of world history to be any more sound than that of abraxas, so I should hardly be surprised at such comments.

"Tortured and murdered millions"... :haha: Don't get me wrong, even 1 death at the hands of the Inquisition is inexcusable and indefensible.

However, unfortunately for people like you who love to make claims like these, there actually were relatively extensive records kept. Number of deaths during the centuries-long run of the Inquisition is estimated at about 3000-5000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls), out of around 125,000 people who went before the councils.

the inquisition wasn't purely a spanish phenomenon. you should really check your knowledge of history before accusing others of lacking it.

Hian-GOAT
10-29-2011, 12:44 PM
Napoleon ;)

Echoes
10-31-2011, 12:49 PM
I have a bit more time now than at my first visit.

Churchill is a bloody ruthless murderer responsible for the death of 1300 French Marine soldiers in harbour of Mers El-Kebir in July 1940 (ultimate Churchillian act: killing your own allies) + Dresden, Hamburg bombings (and others). And a worthless commander (Gallipoli, Singapore, ...).

I don't know who named JFK but powerful call. Agent Orange, that's him.

Nabulione Buonaparte: he's over loved in France but in his rightful place elsewhere just like Robespierre, Clémenceau or Mitterrand. (the bloke stated that in case of a lawsuit between an employee and his boss, the employee would have to prove he's right while the boss could be trusted with his word:rolleyes:).

General de Gaulle had his moments of clear-mindedness but compromising with FLN discredits him. I was a Gaullist for some years.

Guevara, nah. Right-wingers have put him in his rightful place for more than 20 years now. Marx would be a better call. Or Nietzsche.

I'd have to add Franklin D Roosevelt, though. Compromission with Vichy.

shiaben
10-31-2011, 04:54 PM
Interesting to see how the majority of them relate to political powers. Kind of frightening.

buddyholly
10-31-2011, 06:12 PM
Michael Jackson, then.

Oh wait, that's even more frightening.

Edda
11-01-2011, 02:31 AM
I agree with everyone who mentioned Che Guevara. Any serious reading on him would uncover him as stupid and pathetic. I also cringe when some young, stupid kid wears a T-shirt with his picture on it.

shiaben
11-01-2011, 02:35 AM
Che Guevara is just a Latin American communist, nothing more nothing less.

It's hard to get any accurate information about him since a lot of it is hearsay.

Mjau!
11-01-2011, 05:02 AM
Columbus & Churchill. Both jerks!

buddyholly
11-01-2011, 01:20 PM
Churchill is a bloody ruthless murderer responsible for the death of 1300 French Marine soldiers in harbour of Mers El-Kebir in July 1940 (ultimate Churchillian act: killing your own allies)

By then the ''ally'' had signed an armistice and caved in to the Nazis. The French fleet in the hands of the Nazis would have been disastrous to Britain's ruling the waves and eventual goal of liberating France and the rest of Europe. The French were given enough warning and suggestions were made as to how the fleet could be saved.

Apparently French bumbling was to blame for the inability to act. The British ultimatum included the possibility of the fleet moving to American waters and this apparently was already ordered by Darlan for just such a future situation. However, it appears that the text of the ultimatum was not communicated from Gensoul to Darlan and a plan that was already considered suitable to the French was not executed due to these communication lapses.

buddyholly
11-01-2011, 01:23 PM
Churchill is a bloody ruthless murderer responsible for Dresden, Hamburg bombings (and others).



Amazing how Britain can suffer under the German blitz for years and when they are eventually able to reply in kind, they are called ruthless murderers.

ssin
11-01-2011, 02:04 PM
The Rolling Stones after the 60's.

No way, best Stones are 1971-1980 ;)

peribsen
11-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Ok, I'll go classical: Julius Caesar. What he did to them Gauls beats anything one could accuse Churchill of. Plus, he led the way from republic back into autocracy (not to mean the republic wasn't sadly almost dead before Julius got to power, but...).

Sophocles
11-01-2011, 03:38 PM
Nelson Mandela.

I can understand why he is a hero to some black Africans. But his iconic status amongst white liberals is embarrassing.

Har-Tru
11-01-2011, 03:53 PM
I recommend watching this lecture topspindoctor, it shows that science can actually have a say on morality and it isn't true that there isn't absolute right or wrong

sTKf5cCm-9g

I fully recommend his book, The Moral Landscape, which sits on my night table right now. He makes such complicated, counter-intuitive and ground-breaking points, I doubt a two-hour conference will suffice.

peribsen
11-01-2011, 04:29 PM
Nelson Mandela.

I can understand why he is a hero to some black Africans. But his iconic status amongst white liberals is embarrassing.

Why on earth should it be? What is there to assuming a conciliating and deeply healing attitude after having been abused so much that is not fit for whites, liberal or otherwise? Nobody is perfect nor right in every single thing he or she says, but surely trying to avoid violence in such a hotly charged situation demands respect?

buddyholly
11-01-2011, 04:43 PM
Nelson Mandela.

I can understand why he is a hero to some black Africans. But his iconic status amongst white liberals is embarrassing.

"Iconic'' is the new ''amazing.'' Too bad most people do not know what it means. My newspaper has an ad for an ''iconic'' new condo building, - to be completed in 2012!.

It is nice to pronounce, though.

Sophocles
11-01-2011, 05:28 PM
Why on earth should it be? What is there to assuming a conciliating and deeply healing attitude after having been abused so much that is not fit for whites, liberal or otherwise? Nobody is perfect nor right in every single thing he or she says, but surely trying to avoid violence in such a hotly charged situation demands respect?

I didn't say it didn't demand respect. He did far better than I expected and managed to avoid civil war in South Africa, and however well or badly the country is now governed, he deserves credit for that. But his status among white liberals goes way beyond that. He seems to be regarded by many as the most admirable/important man in history, despite his early career as a terrorist and the relative unimportance of South Africa to the wider world. I have discussed this with black people and they agreed his status among white liberals was largely the result of a pathetic pretence that "black" issues were central to their lives.

JolánGagó
11-01-2011, 05:35 PM
I didn't say it didn't demand respect. He did far better than I expected and managed to avoid civil war in South Africa, and however well or badly the country is now governed, he deserves credit for that. But his status among white liberals goes way beyond that. He seems to be regarded by many as the most admirable/important man in history, despite his early career as a terrorist and the relative unimportance of South Africa to the wider world. I have discussed this with black people and they agreed his status among white liberals was largely the result of a pathetic pretence that "black" issues were central to their lives.

and his relentless support of odious, criminal regimes such as Castro's Cuba, merely in return for past favours.

Sophocles
11-01-2011, 05:44 PM
and his relentless support of odious, criminal regimes such as Castro's Cuba, merely in return for past favours.

And his failure to turn the ANC into a genuinely democratic organisation, and so on.

I'm glad one person has mentioned Marx.

peribsen
11-01-2011, 05:49 PM
despite his early career as a terrorist and the relative unimportance of South Africa to the wider world.

The importance of a given country only goes so far when the time comes to judge an individual's merit. In fact, it should only be relevant for the greater or lesser probability that his achievements may be widly known to foreigners. Even so, SA stands in this case as a vital battlefield where a far bigger issue was fought, and that was race, an extremely relevant global issue if there ever was one.

As for his earlier career as a 'terrorist' (not so easy to define that word, is it? Is violence terrorist when suffering is real and protracted and there really is little leeway for legal action?), the funny thing is that you seem to see it as a 'con', while I see it as a 'pro'. I have always thought that it's far more interesting and fruitful for an individual who has been heavily involved in a conflict to find a way through which to dramatically change that conflict, than for someone who hasn't really partaken of the conflict to simply keep on defending ideals which, though possibly true, seem somehow detached of the suffering on the ground.

That's why I, for example, admire the fight against racism in the US, while I'm mostly bored with the politically correct, knee-jerk antiracism of many present-day Europeans, who have never had to stand against received education, social mores and the many sharp edges of actually living in a multiracial ambient. They may be speaking the truth, but it sounds bland in their voices.

Give me a Mandela, Rabin, Arafat, Dr. King, or even Gerry Adams, any day.

arm
11-01-2011, 05:59 PM
Art's wise it had got to be Michael Jackson.

Oh and lets not forget Lady Di.

arm
11-01-2011, 06:11 PM
Hitler's decision to actually invade the USSR is the number one reason we're not all speaking German, mind you.

It's true. Something like 85% of German casualities in WWII happened on USSR soil. IF Hitler chose to honor the pact he signed with Stalin and decided to crush Europe and North America instead, Germany would probably be #1 superpower in the world right now, despite the fact that Yanks think they "won" WWII just because they jumped in the end for fear that the communists will "liberate" Europe and Japan.

Bla bla bla, if if if... sure that was the move that change the whole course of ww2. But Hitler would have never been satisfied with what he already had. You can not make such a big mess in the whole world and expect those changes to last forever. Europe would have always found a way to fight back.

Sophocles
11-01-2011, 06:25 PM
The importance of a given country only goes so far when the time comes to judge an individual's merit. In fact, it should only be relevant for the greater or lesser probability that his achievements may be widly known to foreigners. Even so, SA stands in this case as a vital battlefield where a far bigger issue was fought, and that was race, an extremely relevant global issue if there ever was one.

As for his earlier career as a 'terrorist' (not so easy to define that word, is it? Is violence terrorist when suffering is real and protracted and there really is little leeway for legal action?), the funny thing is that you seem to see it as a 'con', while I see it as a 'pro'. I have always thought that it's far more interesting and fruitful for an individual who has been heavily involved in a conflict to find a way through which to dramatically change that conflict, than for someone who hasn't really partaken of the conflict to simply keep on defending ideals which, though possibly true, seem somehow detached of the suffering on the ground.

That's why I, for example, admire the fight against racism in the US, while I'm mostly bored with the politically correct, knee-jerk antiracism of many present-day Europeans, who have never had to stand against received education, social mores and the many sharp edges of actually living in a multiracial ambient. They may be speaking the truth, but it sounds bland in their voices.

Give me a Mandela, Rabin, Arafat, Dr. King, or even Gerry Adams, any day.

The issue wasn't "race", but the power exercised over one group of people by another, defined by race. I can understand why people with obvious reasons for identifying with the liberated group - black Africans - would regard Mandela as something of a hero. I can understand why a neutral observer, even a white European, who probably has little in common with Afrikaaners *beyond* race, would "support" Mandela as a fighter for justice for his people. But I cannot even begin to understand why white Europeans would cite Mandela as the person from history they would most like to meet, and it is that ludicrous level of adulation I am questioning.

shiaben
11-01-2011, 06:39 PM
I still think Ghandi takes the cake. I mean think about it, the guy is a freaking genius. He used the cultural strength of the nation to bring down the foes. Passive resistance. Simple boycotting. How many people come up with that? Saves lots of lives in the process.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-02-2011, 04:49 AM
I still think Ghandi takes the cake. I mean think about it, the guy is a freaking genius. He used the cultural strength of the nation to bring down the foes. Passive resistance. Simple boycotting. How many people come up with that? Saves lots of lives in the process.

Agree Gandhi was brilliant.

Best way to beat the British empire was through his means.

Gandhi is one of the most effective racist beaters in history.

Topspindoctor
11-02-2011, 05:53 AM
Bla bla bla, if if if... sure that was the move that change the whole course of ww2. But Hitler would have never been satisfied with what he already had. You can not make such a big mess in the whole world and expect those changes to last forever. Europe would have always found a way to fight back.

I am sure. Especially France, who almost knew German national anthem by heart by the time they were liberated.

Caesar1844
11-02-2011, 06:57 AM
Mandela's somewhat overrated, but calling him a terrorist is pretty hyperbolic. He was a saboteur, sure, but the organisation he was involved in did not target or harm any civilians whilst he was involved with it.

AdeyC
11-02-2011, 10:56 AM
As for the answer- Margaret Thatcher. We're probably having a fucking state funeral when the witch croaks it :rolleyes:


When Lady Thatcher passes away - quite rightly so - she was by far the best PM I've known.

Sophocles
11-02-2011, 11:19 AM
Mandela's somewhat overrated, but calling him a terrorist is pretty hyperbolic. He was a saboteur, sure, but the organisation he was involved in did not target or harm any civilians whilst he was involved with it.

"Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated "Spear of the Nation", was the military wing of the ANC. Partly in response to the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, individual members of the ANC found it necessary to consider violence to combat what passive protest had failed to quell. There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal of ending apartheid. Some members of MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. In cooperation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.[6]"

From Wikipedia, my emphases.

Whether or not Mandela was a "terrorist" probably doesn't matter. If you don't have the vote, the usual retort available to the powers-that-be - stand for election yourself & see how you do - is unavailable.

2003
11-02-2011, 11:36 AM
Bono

Poo2 suck

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 04:03 PM
I didn't say it didn't demand respect. He did far better than I expected and managed to avoid civil war in South Africa, and however well or badly the country is now governed, he deserves credit for that. But his status among white liberals goes way beyond that. He seems to be regarded by many as the most admirable/important man in history, despite his early career as a terrorist and the relative unimportance of South Africa to the wider world. I have discussed this with black people and they agreed his status among white liberals was largely the result of a pathetic pretence that "black" issues were central to their lives.

i kind of agree but when you say he used to be a terrorist you're siding with the nastiest racists of the world. as we know, the definition of 'terrorism' varies from context to context and from winner to winner. what are terrorists to some are freedom fighters to others.

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 04:04 PM
Bono

yeah, i agree with you on this one

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 04:06 PM
When Lady Thatcher passes away - quite rightly so - she was by far the best PM I've known.

no. thatcher ruined the little good there was left in britain.

Sophocles
11-02-2011, 04:07 PM
i kind of agree but when you say he used to be a terrorist you're siding with the nastiest racists of the world. as we know, the definition of 'terrorism' varies from context to context and from winner to winner. what are terrorists to some are freedom fighters to others.

Well, yes & no, but please read my immediately previous post in this thread.

I should make it clear once again, I am NOT nominating Mandela because I imagine he was some kind of Idi Amin figure, or because I support apartheid (even though I'm unconvinced the National Party was any worse than the A.N.C.). I am nominating him as the most "over-loved" historical person because of the ridiculous amount of adulation he gets from white liberals.

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 04:14 PM
I am nominating him as the most "over-loved" historical person because of the ridiculous amount of adulation he gets from white liberals.
i agree with that. mandela is far from being a saint and the ANC is far from being a good ruling coalition. for one thing it's totally corrupt and many whites are now fed up of living in south africa. when i visited the place pretty much all the young whites wanted to leave to europe, USA or australia. i could recognize that white south africa was still quite racist in general but the feelings of discontent werent exclusively based on racism. they do have valid reasons to be pissed off.
however, the impact that mandala had in his fight against apartheid is undeniable. he's a massive figure for blacks in south africa and rightly so. his years in prison and his struggle to make of south africa a more integrated society when he got to power (instead of taking revenge at the whites) cannot be denied. does he have his flaws? sure he has but all in all, there's a lot more good than bad, imo.

I'm unconvinced the National Party was any worse than the A.N.C.
im quite surprised by this statement. please explain.

JolánGagó
11-02-2011, 04:20 PM
Lady Thatcher must be the most underloved personality, one of XX century Best and Greatest.

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 04:27 PM
Lady Thatcher must be the most underloved personality, one of XX century Best and Greatest.

:facepalm:

why am i not surprised to read this from you...

jmjhb
11-02-2011, 04:38 PM
What Thatcher did was necessary and at least defensible, but the heartless manner in which she did it was unnecessarily divisive and extremely damaging and continues to be so.

Sophocles
11-02-2011, 04:45 PM
Thatcher was a necessary evil, & more necessary than evil in my opinion.

Sophocles
11-02-2011, 04:50 PM
i agree with that. mandela is far from being a saint and the ANC is far from being a good ruling coalition. for one thing it's totally corrupt and many whites are now fed up of living in south africa. when i visited the place pretty much all the young whites wanted to leave to europe, USA or australia. i could recognize that white south africa was still quite racist in general but the feelings of discontent werent exclusively based on racism. they do have valid reasons to be pissed off.
however, the impact that mandala had in his fight against apartheid is undeniable. he's a massive figure for blacks in south africa and rightly so. his years in prison and his struggle to make of south africa a more integrated society when he got to power (instead of taking revenge at the whites) cannot be denied. does he have his flaws? sure he has but all in all, there's a lot more good than bad, imo.


im quite surprised by this statement. please explain.

I certainly agree with this, and the bolded part is kind of my point. As for your question, against the National Party you have the apartheid regime and various, sometimes appalling, instances of oppression enforcing it, whereas against the A.N.C. you have endemic corruption, failure to deal with the biggest public health crisis in the country's history, effective one-party rule, & total misgovernment of the country resulting in its becoming, among other things, the most crime-ridden society on earth. Mandela was the best of them as without him I very much doubt you'd have had such a peaceful transition to majority rule, but since he stepped down they've been an absolute shower. I'm sure most blacks (which means most South Africans) would still pick them over the N.P., but from an outside perspective it's not as obvious as you might think.

Gagsquet
11-02-2011, 05:07 PM
Chirac. Denouncing Irak's invasion doesn't make him a good and honest man.
Embarrassing popularity rating in France.

buddyholly
11-02-2011, 05:11 PM
no. thatcher ruined the little good there was left in britain.

That is a joke. Ask Britons that are old enough to know. Since she is gone, Britain has just wobbled, wobbled, wobbled.
Which of course is what you want.

But I have seen the trailer for the Iron Lady. In it, Meryl Streep spoke just two sentences and it was like the second coming. Oscar for sure.
She said something like, "OK, I can do without the hat, but the pearls stay. We do have to set the right tone.''
Pearls on her neck, marbles in her mouth. Loved it.

JolánGagó
11-02-2011, 05:55 PM
What Thatcher did was necessary and at least defensible, but the heartless manner in which she did it was unnecessarily divisive and extremely damaging and continues to be so.

She reminds me of scoobsie, heartless and ruthless but effective in ruling this madhouse and protecting our welfare.

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 06:24 PM
I certainly agree with this, and the bolded part is kind of my point. As for your question, against the National Party you have the apartheid regime and various, sometimes appalling, instances of oppression enforcing it, whereas against the A.N.C. you have endemic corruption, failure to deal with the biggest public health crisis in the country's history, effective one-party rule, & total misgovernment of the country resulting in its becoming, among other things, the most crime-ridden society on earth. Mandela was the best of them as without him I very much doubt you'd have had such a peaceful transition to majority rule, but since he stepped down they've been an absolute shower. I'm sure most blacks (which means most South Africans) would still pick them over the N.P., but from an outside perspective it's not as obvious as you might think.

im sorry but i dont believe that for a second.

many white south africans to this day love to think that they built a well funcitioning country with sound instititions and a good standard of living. that much might have been true but only for about 10% of the country but in general terms, south africa was always a mess. now some white south africans act surprised at the high crime rates and the mismanagment. well, what did they expect? those were the crows the whites raised. you cannot build a society of privilegdes ones igoring a big majority with almost no rights and protection and then pretend it's a good country.

however, it's not all that bad as the critics like to think. south africa's economy has performed well after apartheid and the institutions keep working. sure, there's a lot of corruption and shady things going on but to say there's 'total mismanagement of the country' is a big exaggeration.

then again, as much of a mess south africa might be, at least there's no open gvt sanctioned discrimination just because of different skin colours or gvt and social persecution just because you might think different about a system built on segregation and racism. that aspect alone serves to compensate a lot of the negatives

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 06:28 PM
That is a joke. Ask Britons that are old enough to know. Since she is gone, Britain has just wobbled, wobbled, wobbled.
Which of course is what you want.

But I have seen the trailer for the Iron Lady. In it, Meryl Streep spoke just two sentences and it was like the second coming. Oscar for sure.
She said something like, "OK, I can do without the hat, but the pearls stay. We do have to set the right tone.''
Pearls on her neck, marbles in her mouth. Loved it.

sorry but she is a heartless arrogant witch with an annoying accent. worst thing to happen to britain since churchill

tennizen
11-02-2011, 06:34 PM
She reminds me of scoobsie, heartless and ruthless but effective in ruling this madhouse and protecting our welfare.

:spit:

Ilovetheblues_86
11-02-2011, 06:44 PM
Scoobs sacrifices his emotions in doing that. He wants to be happy too man.

rocketassist
11-02-2011, 06:46 PM
no. thatcher ruined the little good there was left in britain.

Adey is probably from the South. Doesn't get why people in Northern towns despise her.

Sophocles
11-02-2011, 07:01 PM
Adey is probably from the South. Doesn't get why people in Northern towns despise her.

I'm from the South and I very much get that, but I also get that the trade unions were out of control and needed to be reined in.

buddyholly
11-02-2011, 07:27 PM
sorry but she is a heartless arrogant witch with an annoying accent. worst thing to happen to britain since churchill
Don't confuse yourself with Britain.
Oh, I know, she let Bobby Sands commit suicide without recognising him as a politicial prisoner. Maybe she had a heart for his innocent victims.
And I guess that having been re-elected unfailingly over a period of 33 years would mean that you consider British voters clowns. So sad that they did not call you for voting advice.

Gagsquet
11-02-2011, 07:31 PM
Blair > Thatcher

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 07:44 PM
blair is a money-hungry war-mongering corrupt lying prick but probly still marginally better than thatcher

that says a lot about the sad state of affairs of brit politics actually :help:

abraxas21
11-02-2011, 07:50 PM
Don't confuse yourself with Britain.
Oh, I know, she let Bobby Sands commit suicide without recognising him as a politicial prisoner. Maybe she had a heart for his innocent victims.
And I guess that having been re-elected unfailingly over a period of 33 years would mean that you consider British voters clowns. So sad that they did not call you for voting advice.

maggie had no heart at all, thats the problem

makes sense that she ruled for that much time. perhaps thats why shes so admired by right wing dictators from all around the world. brit voters were for sure insane or most likely just drunk

Vida
11-02-2011, 08:57 PM
prima donna was a big fan of thatcher.

JolánGagó
11-02-2011, 09:21 PM
Lay Thatcher deserves many, many more fans.

Mjau!
11-02-2011, 11:03 PM
blair is a money-hungry war-mongering corrupt lying prick but probly still marginally better than thatcher

that says a lot about the sad state of affairs of brit politics actually :help:

That assesment says a lot about the sad state of your world view. You show yet again that you are the worst kind of clueless, tribalistic socialist.

Blair better than Thatcher... :rolleyes: :o

rocketassist
11-02-2011, 11:08 PM
Thatcher is a lying, odious twat who didn't give two fucks about working class people, favoured the rich and also helped cover up police failings that killed 96 innocent people.

Where I live, the clock's ticking. When she croaks, everyone's running to the pubs.

Blair was too right-wing for my liking, but the Labour government were miles better. Brought the minimum wage in, improved the NHS, made university education more accessible and made the North of England mean something.

That assesment says a lot about the sad state of your world view. You show yet again that you are the worst kind of clueless, tribalistic socialist.

Blair better than Thatcher... :rolleyes: :o

You didn't come from or live in an area that the old witch and her Tory cronies showed utter contempt for.

Mjau!
11-02-2011, 11:14 PM
The Iraq war alone makes Blair much worse than Maggie.

rocketassist
11-02-2011, 11:17 PM
The Iraq war alone makes Blair much worse than Maggie.

Tories would have done exactly the fucking same, though the Iraq conflict was an international issue rather than a domestic one so you have some point there.

Mjau!
11-02-2011, 11:33 PM
I don't care if the Tories would have done the same thing. It doesn't make Blair any better.

Caesar1844
11-02-2011, 11:35 PM
"Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated "Spear of the Nation", was the military wing of the ANC. Partly in response to the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, individual members of the ANC found it necessary to consider violence to combat what passive protest had failed to quell. There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal of ending apartheid. Some members of MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. In cooperation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.[6]"

From Wikipedia, my emphases.
Eh, unreferenced Wiki articles... always good for a laugh.

MK was an armed paramilitary organisation, sure. And it was envisioned from its founding as a way to combat any military crackdown on the ANC. And yes, it did commit terrorist acts towards the end of apartheid.

But during Mandela's time, MK never did more than sabotage vacant government installations. He was imprisoned in 62, and it wasn't until the mid-70s that MK started getting involved in guerilla warefare (and not until the 80s that they started actually targeting civilians).

People who call Mandela a terrorist usually do so because he was involved with MK, and MK was the organisation who did stuff like the Church Street bombings in the 1980s. But the reality is that MK changed massively in the intervening years.

Sophocles
11-03-2011, 01:11 AM
Blair was the worst Prime Minister in British history. And I mean that.

abraxas21
11-03-2011, 01:22 AM
That assesment says a lot about the sad state of your world view. You show yet again that you are the worst kind of clueless, tribalistic socialist.

Blair better than Thatcher... :rolleyes: :o

you think thatcher wouldnt have supported the wars in the middle east if she wouldnt have been in that situation?

for whats worth, blair is a major prick and i'd never give him my vote not even if it were to run an andy murray fanclub but i do think he's marginally better (or less worse) than maggie. note that im not talking exclusively about what they did when they were leading britain, i'm talking about what they are as persons. it's a value judgement just like yours so zip it.

also, spare me the sermon (or should i say insults). hell, im not even a socialist.

Action Jackson
11-03-2011, 01:34 AM
Well, yes & no, but please read my immediately previous post in this thread.

I should make it clear once again, I am NOT nominating Mandela because I imagine he was some kind of Idi Amin figure, or because I support apartheid (even though I'm unconvinced the National Party was any worse than the A.N.C.). I am nominating him as the most "over-loved" historical person because of the ridiculous amount of adulation he gets from white liberals.

Come on, there were significant sections of white people who didn't agree with apartheid. Watch the 16th Man Doco, where they interviewed guys like James Small, Francois Pienaar, Koos Botha, yes when Mandela was released which was too late for him to make more of a significant impact politically. Actually all historical figures are overrated, no one comes close to perfection, but Mandela stopped an all out civil war.

For all of the problems with cronyism, corruption there are still lots of immigration from other African countries into South Africa looking for better economic opportunities. People shouldn't be officially discriminated into what areas they live in, jobs they work, where they can because of their skin colour.

peribsen
11-03-2011, 01:37 AM
Blair was the worst Prime Minister in British history. And I mean that.

How soon do some people forgive the Earl of Bute, that rascal who was the first tory(!!) (oh dear, oh dear, now I've said that awfull word).

Or should I choose the duke of Grafton, who allowed the French to keep Corsica, ignoring that frogs may become dangerous when under the spell of a Corsican hound?

And besides, Blair in any case would be the worst prime minister in post-British history, he would never have made it anywhere near Downing street when the globe was still a healthy pink (Chorister School in Durham my foot... wonder if they even have a school-tie).

rocketassist
11-03-2011, 04:27 AM
Blair's disliked cause he does come across as very right-wing, but he ran a left-wing party. Basically no one would vote Labour while they had such a socialist identity except in the working class areas like mine, so he repackaged the whole thing as New Labour and it won him three straight elections. He'd arguably have beaten Cameron pretty comfortably if he'd stayed too.

Despite being the most Tory-esque of all Labour PMs, the blue lot still hate him the most cause he annihilated them like no one else ever had.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-03-2011, 05:10 AM
Blair's disliked cause he does come across as very right-wing, but he ran a left-wing party. Basically no one would vote Labour while they had such a socialist identity except in the working class areas like mine, so he repackaged the whole thing as New Labour and it won him three straight elections. He'd arguably have beaten Cameron pretty comfortably if he'd stayed too.

Despite being the most Tory-esque of all Labour PMs, the blue lot still hate him the most cause he annihilated them like no one else ever had.

Wow a Fedtard and a right wing loony.

Your traits are perfectly matched.

Mjau!
11-03-2011, 05:44 AM
you think thatcher wouldnt have supported the wars in the middle east if she wouldnt have been in that situation?

for whats worth, blair is a major prick and i'd never give him my vote not even if it were to run an andy murray fanclub but i do think he's marginally better (or less worse) than maggie. note that im not talking exclusively about what they did when they were leading britain, i'm talking about what they are as persons. it's a value judgement just like yours so zip it.

also, spare me the sermon (or should i say insults). hell, im not even a socialist.

In other words, Blair might be a power-hungry, corrupt, lying, corporatist, war-criminal, but damn it, he's still a social democrat :inlove: :worship: and thus automatically a better person than a heartless neo-liberal! :scared:

Yes, you are! :rolleyes: And clueless too, since you complain about inequality while overlooking the main driving force behind inequality and concentration of wealth. :wavey:

abraxas21
11-03-2011, 06:00 AM
In other words, Blair might be a power-hungry, corrupt, lying, corporatist, war-criminal, but damn it, he's still a social democrat :inlove: :worship: and thus automatically a better person than a heartless neo-liberal! :scared:

Yes, you are! :rolleyes: And clueless too, since you complain about inequality while overlooking the main driving force behind inequality and concentration of wealth. :wavey:

right...

your 'in other words' = 'what i want to believe'. talk about strawmen, kiddo...

Mjau!
11-03-2011, 06:05 AM
right...

your 'in other words' = 'what i want to believe'. talk about strawmen, kiddo...

Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and tell me I'm wrong!

abraxas21
11-03-2011, 06:33 AM
Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and tell me I'm wrong!

you're wrong

Caesar1844
11-03-2011, 07:07 AM
It does seem that Thatcher is a lot more hated by people who didn't live under the preceding Labour government, compared to those who did. Maggie played hardball and a lot of people suffered, but it's hard to argue that Britain didn't come out the other end of the Thatcher era far better off than when she started. A large number of the things she did desperately needed to be done - even if she did them with an iron fist rather than a velvet glove.

Aside from a couple of coalminers and trade unionists, I don't think I've ever met a British person who was of working age prior to her coming to power who doesn't have at least some degree of grudging respect for her achievements. People forget how crippled and moribund the British economy was in those days.

Mjau!
11-03-2011, 07:16 AM
you're wrong

You're a shameless liar! :ras:

Echoes
11-03-2011, 09:04 AM
Chirac. Denouncing Irak's invasion doesn't make him a good and honest man.

Yeah, instead of denouncing it, he should've sent you there.

By then the ''ally'' had signed an armistice and caved in to the Nazis. The French fleet in the hands of the Nazis would have been disastrous to Britain's ruling the waves and eventual goal of liberating France and the rest of Europe. The French were given enough warning and suggestions were made as to how the fleet could be saved.

Apparently French bumbling was to blame for the inability to act. The British ultimatum included the possibility of the fleet moving to American waters and this apparently was already ordered by Darlan for just such a future situation. However, it appears that the text of the ultimatum was not communicated from Gensoul to Darlan and a plan that was already considered suitable to the French was not executed due to these communication lapses.

2nd alinea is interesting. I didn't know I must admit. "American waters" means Caraibeans? What about the other habours? Mers El Kebir was not the only target.

1st alinea:
Armistice = Arms suspension
Capitulation = Surrender.

Neither Pétain nor Darlan had any intention of sending the fleet over to the Germans and they never did it, they were waiting for the allies to come but, for some reason, Churchill and De Gaulle lied about the Armistice prior to Mers El Kebir.

The Blitz is no excuse for Dresden bombing (& others). And it would be ridiculous to name Hitler in a most over-loved person thread.

By the way Churchill and Franklin D. also betrayed the Chetniks in Serbia and supported Tito instead.

Echoes
11-03-2011, 10:15 AM
How could I forget about Siegmund Freud. In contention for World #1.

Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu and all those French who thought they were enlightened. + Kant and Descartes


Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Keith Richards (robber) & Pete Townsend.

Jean Monnet & Robert Schuman (Eurofools)


The best period for the Stones is 1969-1974, id est the Mick Taylor years.

Though it's not accurate because that group was not the Rolling Stones. It should be renamed "Mick Taylor & the Rolling Stones". :yeah:

AdeyC
11-03-2011, 10:52 AM
Adey is probably from the South. Doesn't get why people in Northern towns despise her.

I don't think most Northern people know why people in Northern towns despise her.

The country was in a state before she took over - and whilst no-one is 100% right in everything (or wrong in everything come to that) - when she left things had improved.

Action Jackson
11-03-2011, 10:55 AM
I don't think most Northern people know why people in Northern towns despise her.

The country was in a state before she took over - and whilst no-one is 100% right in everything (or wrong in everything come to that) - when she left things had improved.

That's a pretty silly thing to say, it's pretty obvious why many in Northern England and Scotland didn't appreciate Thatcher.

AdeyC
11-03-2011, 11:17 AM
That's a pretty silly thing to say, it's pretty obvious why many in Northern England and Scotland didn't appreciate Thatcher.

You'll get people who hate her purely for the sake of it too. Of course I can understand why she's less popular in the North but I won't accept from anyone that she did absolutely nothing right.

Action Jackson
11-03-2011, 11:25 AM
You'll get people who hate her purely for the sake of it too. Of course I can understand why she's less popular in the North but I won't accept from anyone that she did absolutely nothing right.

But people hate any figure for the sake of it, so it's a dumb comment. The same could be applied to Castro, Gaddafi, Hitler even these creatures got some things right during their time.

AdeyC
11-03-2011, 11:49 AM
But people hate any figure for the sake of it, so it's a dumb comment.

Thats what I was saying in the first place re:Northern and Maggie when you stated said that that was a silly comment - now you're saying people hate any figure for the sake of it - thats what I'm - saying lot of Northern People hate Maggie for the sake of it.

So is it my original comment thats silly - or the fact that you're agreeing with it now dumb :devil:

As a sideline - don't get many that hate Diana.

The same could be applied to Castro, Gaddafi, Hitler even these creatures got some things right during their time.

I can't see Maggie being regarded in the same league as that mob surely?

Indeed - but would you get any of them to give Maggie credit for anything?

Action Jackson
11-03-2011, 11:56 AM
Thats what I was saying in the first place re:Northern and Maggie when you stated said that that was a silly comment - now you're saying people hate any figure for the sake of it - thats what I'm - saying lot of Northern People hate Maggie for the sake of it.

So is it my original comment thats silly - or the fact that you're agreeing with it now dumb :devil:

As a sideline - don't get many that hate Diana.



I can't see Maggie being regarded in the same league as that mob surely?

Indeed - but would you get any of them to give Maggie credit for anything?

Actually, you assumed people in the north only hate her for the sake of it, when many people up there and also especially in Scotland have plenty of reasons to dislike Thatcher. So that's dumb.

Well you can't see why people outside of the south east of England don't always hold Thatcher in high regard. As for that other mob, well they all got something right when they were in power, think about it.

AdeyC
11-03-2011, 12:09 PM
Actually, you assumed people in the north only hate her for the sake of it, when many people up there have plenty of reasons to dislike Thatcher. So that's dumb.


I'm sorry but I do think a lot do. And I'm not denying that there are reasons for her to be disliked by some people - but no more than Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major, Blair and Brown, etc.

Action Jackson
11-03-2011, 12:15 PM
I'm sorry but I do think a lot do. And I'm not denying that there are reasons for her to be disliked by some people - but no more than Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major, Blair and Brown, etc.

Considering it's only been since Attila the Hen left that the many of the cities up there recovered and regenerated after being economic wastelands, it's not hard to fathom, why many dislike her.

They and in Scotland bore a lot of the brunt of the economic restructure that concentrated the wealth in the southeast, best of all Scottish oil was used to fund this, yet Scotland didn't vote for the Tories. Someone to had cop the crap of the economic restructure, it wasn't the part of the country where you are, that got rich.

AdeyC
11-03-2011, 12:26 PM
They and in Scotland bore a lot of the brunt of the economic restructure that concentrated the wealth in the southeast, best of all Scottish oil was used to fund this, yet Scotland didn't vote for the Tories. Someone to had cop the crap of the economic restructure, it wasn't the part of the country where you are, that got rich.

I may be in Brighton now - you are assuming that I was in 79-90?

But I think we're not going to agree on this one are we my friend :)

Action Jackson
11-03-2011, 12:35 PM
I may be in Brighton now - you are assuming that I was in 79-90?

But I think we're not going to agree on this one are we my friend :)

If you can't see certain regions suffered because the economy needed restructuring and it was partially funded by a resource in Scotland where they didn't vote for the Tories along with many closures to inefficient industries, then that's your choice.

rocketassist
11-03-2011, 04:34 PM
I'm sorry but I do think a lot do. And I'm not denying that there are reasons for her to be disliked by some people - but no more than Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major, Blair and Brown, etc.

DwJlZrNPviY

My hometown, well home region during the Thatcher era.

BTW the way she covered up the police's handling of Hillsborough is a reason enough for people round here to hate her.

rocketassist
11-03-2011, 04:40 PM
Wow a Fedtard and a right wing loony.

Your traits are perfectly matched.

I'm a socialist you fool, read between the lines.

Sophocles
11-03-2011, 05:26 PM
Considering it's only been since Attila the Hen left that the many of the cities up there recovered and regenerated after being economic wastelands, it's not hard to fathom, why many dislike her.

They and in Scotland bore a lot of the brunt of the economic restructure that concentrated the wealth in the southeast, best of all Scottish oil was used to fund this, yet Scotland didn't vote for the Tories. Someone to had cop the crap of the economic restructure, it wasn't the part of the country where you are, that got rich.

The quid pro quo is that England has been robbed by Labour to subsidise more generous Scottish welfare arrangements for years - without voting for Labour.

JolánGagó
11-03-2011, 05:48 PM
The quid pro quo is that England has been robbed by Labour to subsidise more generous Scottish welfare arrangements for years - without voting for Labour.

Plus, the Scots have their own parliament and goverment reigning supreme in many matters while the English must do with what British parliament and goverment put on the table for them. Many things have been devolved to Scotland, none to England; that's ridiculous.

JolánGagó
11-03-2011, 05:53 PM
BTW the way she covered up the police's handling of Hillsborough is a reason enough for people round here to hate her.

None of your petty local grudges, no matter how justified, can possibly damage the truly global Great & Greatness of Lady Thatcher and her inmense contribution to the welfare of the people of Britain and beyond.

abraxas21
11-03-2011, 07:03 PM
None of your petty local grudges, no matter how justified, can possibly damage the truly global Great & Greatness of Lady Thatcher and her inmense contribution to the welfare of the people of Britain and beyond.

ladies and gentlemen, the words of a man who doesn't want to see

JolánGagó
11-03-2011, 07:06 PM
sorry, I meant Good & Greatness.

rocketassist
11-03-2011, 07:10 PM
The quid pro quo is that England has been robbed by Labour to subsidise more generous Scottish welfare arrangements for years - without voting for Labour.

Majority of England did vote for Labour though, they won three landslides, although it's true that if you did it by proportional representation form it wouldn't top 50%

None of your petty local grudges, no matter how justified, can possibly damage the truly global Great & Greatness of Lady Thatcher and her inmense contribution to the welfare of the people of Britain and beyond.

'no matter how justified' stop fucking trolling puto. People who live here have more of a clue. I certainly couldn't judge Mr Zapatero.

shiaben
11-03-2011, 09:33 PM
Thatcher displays herself presentable on the outside yet so wicked and sinister on the inside. Quite a character this Thatcher.

AdeyC
11-04-2011, 01:01 AM
Majority of England did vote for Labour though, they won three landslides, although it's true that if you did it by proportional representation form it wouldn't top 50%



It wasn't the majority - it was something like 43% wasn't it (and before you say it Maggie had 43-44%)

rocketassist
11-04-2011, 02:01 AM
It wasn't the majority - it was something like 43% wasn't it (and before you say it Maggie had 43-44%)

Majority of votes were I meant, though obviously under 50%.

They were still elected in with the most votes in both England and Scotland, so the subsidising of Scotland at least holds more water than vice versa where there was no Tory MPs up there.

BigJohn
11-04-2011, 02:17 AM
Reagan.