Mens Tennis Forums banner

Who is the most over loved historic person?

14K views 344 replies 85 participants last post by  MichaelKrep 
#1 ·
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Echoes
#56 ·
I thought you were asking about the most loved person and I was confused by the replies.
 
#57 ·
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.
 
#60 ·
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.
 
#67 ·
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.
 
#69 ·
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.
 
#68 ·
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?
 
#125 ·
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.
 
#82 ·
Thanks for the bad rep Seingeist but Mother Teresa was still an awful person :wavey:
 
#84 ·
indeed she was, Christopher Hitchens made a good documentary to clear this up



short version

 
#83 ·
Yeshua bar Yosef

Muhammad ibn Abdillah
 
#85 ·
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.
 
#87 ·
I suggest watching the documentary before you defend her
 
#90 ·
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 and this and this and this and watch this. 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
 
#93 ·
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verd
#94 ·
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.
 
#99 · (Edited)
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.
 
#122 ·
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.
 
#101 ·
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
 
#102 · (Edited)
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.
 
#127 ·
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.
 
#115 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top