Who is the worst human being alive?

[AspecBob]

After thinking about this for a while, I thought I'd nominate whoever it is that profits the most from child pornography. But since we have to come up with an actual name, after a short google search I ended up here. So, a bit arbitrarily, I would nominate Robert Cuff, since he's the first one in the list of convictions to get a life sentence.

 

[Eh Team]

Almost the same.

I really just read that didn't I, holy crap.

One man was in office when a debatable case of domestic terrorism happened (debatable as to whether the government planned it) and then started a war in the middle east claiming it was to protect the country.

The other man while in office ended such war, killed the man responsible for many acts of terrorism and possibly the allegedly planned one of the previous government. He also attempted to create a healthcare system that doesn't take people's cash like old timey bank robbers.

Yeah, almost the same guy, right.

 

[niky]

You could make excellent arguments for the Catholic Church's stances on homosexuality and contraception have caused more poverty, more disease and more persecution than any other body in history.

I would wait and see about this Pope. Gives me a chuckle every time the Vatican has to backtrack and re-interpret his speeches for the public, considering he says and does a lot of things that has the Vatican squirming.

He can't help that he is the figurehead for such a terribly flawed and dangerous organization, but he does seem to be trying to change it.

Now if we were talking about Papa Ratzi... go for it.

People behind this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maguindanao_massacre

That would be Andal Ampatuan, Senior, the patriarch of the Ampatuan clan. Still no patch on Ferdinand Marcos, but Marcos is dead.

And so is Andal.

He's probably not the worst human, but Martin Shkreli is a good shout. Hiking the price of that AIDS/HIV drug from $13.50 to $750 was pretty bloody disgusting.

Shkreli is a good con-man. Good in the sense that he's conned the world into thinking that he's a horrible human being when the reality is he's just a horrible businessman.

Monsanto staff.

For doing book-keeping and secretarial work for a multinational corporation that supplies agricultural products to third-world farmers (who were committing suicide en masse before Monsanto started selling them seeds, but hey! Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story!) and which sells patented seeds for regular crops, hybrid crops, genetically-modified crops (which are different from hybrid crops only in the fact that said modification was done in a lab, not via radiation and intensive, high-mutation rate cross-breeding) and ultra-low impact herbicides and pesticides?

-

On that note... let me add my two cents:

Joseph Mercola

and

Jenny McCarthy.

For willfully contributing to the delinquency and idiocy of the American (and Global) consumer.

I'd include Vani Hari, the Food Babe, but honestly, if you're dumb enough to believe anything she says, you're hopeless.

-

I'd add Jeremy Clarkson, but he punched Piers Morgan. That has to go some way to atoning for his sins.

-

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned EA yet. Or is that just soooo 2014?

 

[Danoff]

I really just read that didn't I, holy crap.

One man was in office when a debatable case of domestic terrorism happened (debatable as to whether the government planned it) and then started a war in the middle east claiming it was to protect the country.

The other man while in office ended such war, killed the man responsible for many acts of terrorism and possibly the allegedly planned one of the previous government. He also attempted to create a healthcare system that doesn't take people's cash like old timey bank robbers.

Yeah, almost the same guy, right.

You sir, have been at the kool-aid bigtime. Obama has a place in the discussion, he started wars in the middle east, presided over old ones, and has killed many innocent people with drone attacks (and other attacks, but Drones are kinda his thing). Regardless of your political leanings (and yours are pretty evident), Obama is a legitimate talking point here.

 

[Eh Team]

You sir, have been at the kool-aid bigtime. Obama has a place in the discussion, he started wars in the middle east, presided over old ones, and has killed many innocent people with drone attacks (and other attacks, but Drones are kinda his thing). Regardless of your political leanings (and yours are pretty evident), Obama is a legitimate talking point here.

He has started wars against terrorist organizations yes, but none against actual countries for the purpose of invading and taking it over. I'm not saying that starting wars is a good thing, however terrorist organizations are a problem that you can't just leave alone and assume they'll fix themselves.

There are reasons why he prefers drones to soldiers, though I cannot find any specific reasons a good guess can be made at it. One reason being is that a drone is likely the fastest and least dangerous way to US forces to kill an enemy. If soldiers were to be deployed to fight there is no guarantee they will come back alive. So the whole point of using drones is to reduce danger to yourself as much as possible while maximizing the damage to the enemy. Unfortunately, as news reports have shown, it is difficult at best to hit only your target in a strike that starts X number of kilometers in the sky. So yes there is a terrible part of this kind of warfare that involves people dying whose only wrong was the place they happened to be during the strike.

While I do believe in some ways that the only way to really defeat the target organizations is with boots on the ground, it would be silly to fight as they fight. What needs to happen is they need to be fought in a way that they cannot fight, and that answer is currently drone strikes, but it should not be the only way they are fought. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that Barack is making the best of his current situation as President, having little control over what happens in the House and the Senate.

In the conversation for worst person alive? I don't really think so, he's not purposely killing civilians.

In the conversation for having the worst war tactics? Yes, but there's something to be said for the fact he got bin Laden.

 

[Pupik]

You sir, have been at the kool-aid bigtime. Obama has a place in the discussion, he started wars in the middle east, presided over old ones, and has killed many innocent people with drone attacks (and other attacks, but Drones are kinda his thing). Regardless of your political leanings (and yours are pretty evident), Obama is a legitimate talking point here.

I think the Middle East Cluster**** has been going on for decades...even centuries before Barack Hussein Obama was born. He hasn't exactly laid down fire retardant for the situation, though.

(I just realized I cursed, that's kinda rare.)

 

[Danoff]

I think the Middle East Cluster**** has been going on for decades...even centuries before Barack Hussein Obama was born. He hasn't exactly laid down fire retardant for the situation, though.

I'm definitely not blaming Barry for the situation in the Middle East, nor would I lay blame on Bush Jr. for that situation. It's an ancient holy war.

 

[squadops]

How can you rail against repeated accusations of vagueness and then come out with something like that? Are you saying you're a lord of some kind?

Oh brother, I forgot the quotation button, do you need the scripture? I will spoon feed it to you then

Matthew 18:20 is what I was referring to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Oh brother, I forgot the quotation button, do you need the scripture? I will spoon feed it to you then

Matthew 18:20 is what I was referring to.

Ah, if you quote something then yes, it's quite important to quote it. That's kind of just-how-it-works.

I don't see the relevance to your being a lord though;

For where twain or three be gathered in my name there I am in the middle of them.

You do seem to be putting yourself in the middle though.

 

[squadops]

Here is my post with the quotation added, and I'll further explain it for you then.

I have always looked at it this way, and I hope you guys get me; "two or more gathered in my name are in the presence of the lord". I do not and have never cared for any sort of organization. 👍

Now what that means is, you do not need the pope or any other clergy to believe in god or follow christianity. Clear enough now?

 

[Pupik]

Oh brother, I forgot the quotation button, do you need the scripture? I will spoon feed it to you then

Matthew 18:20 is what I was referring to.

If you're going to quote Scripture, we could go on to say how Cain killed roughly 16-25% of the world's population.

 

[squadops]

Yes we could, it was all in response to "how bad is the pope?"

 

[TenEightyOne]

and I hope you guys get me; "two or more gathered in my name are in the presence of the lord". I do not and have never cared for any sort of organization. 👍

Firstly you've misquoted it, secondly you've presented part of the scriptures that gives instructions for gathering together in judgement but then say that you don't care for any sort of organisation. I'm no clearer.

Anyway... I'm adding my vote to Robert Mugabe although, as others have alluded to, there are probably any number of similar despotic leaders around Africa and other parts of the world whose names are not so well known, if at all outside their spheres of influence.

 

[squadops]

Yeah, I paraphrased or just whatever. 2 or more is not exactly the vatican now is it? I don't know why you have a craw in your feather but it's ok.

With organization comes corruption, that is a given, but how bad is the Pope?

 

[LeMansAid]

Seems most are going for options that amount to abuse of power whilst in the public eye. I'd be more inclined to err towards abuse of power when behind closed doors, without any perks other than satisfying cruel perversions on offer.

I can sympathise with the perils of weighing up complicated cause and effect scenarios. Sometimes people end up doing bad things for good reasons, bad things to the few for the sake of the many. I can even sympathise to an extent with those that succumb to the temptation of viewing the people they rule over as nameless and faceless pawns, ripe for the using for the leader's own gain.

What I can't get past, or comprehend, is how an adult could wield power over a child, very much with a face and a name - also with what would have been a bright future but for the adult extracting fleeting pleasure from the child, and it's rightful proper chance at life in the process. If courage is being scared but doing it anyway, then for me the worst humans are those that when faced with uncomplicated decisions, with dire consequences for another or others, and with nothing of substance to be gained, proceed to do it anyway.

I doubt I'll ever know which one the particular worst abuser is. I assume that their abuse of power would be far too effective to allow knowledge of them. Knowing and imagining the depths of human behaviour, I doubt I'll be putting forward an actual name at any point.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Serious answer: the Kardashians et al.

Okay, there are some true monsters out there. I could list them all, but they have mostly be covered in this thread. Having read it, my question is this: would we appreciate the limitless potential of human kindness if we didn't understand the depths of human callousness? On other words, would we even recognise kindness for what it is if we didn't have callousness to compare it to?

Assuming for the moment that the answer is no, then the Kardashians are the worst people in the world. They produce nothing, consume everything, desecrate our culture and leech off everyone around them.

 

[Com Fox]

Serious answer: the Kardashians et al.

Okay, there are some true monsters out there. I could list them all, but they have mostly be covered in this thread. Having read it, my question is this: would we appreciate the limitless potential of human kindness if we didn't understand the depths of human callousness? On other words, would we even recognise kindness for what it is if we didn't have callousness to compare it to?

Assuming for the moment that the answer is no, then the Kardashians are the worst people in the world. They produce nothing, consume everything, desecrate our culture and leech off everyone around them.

Some would argue that they produce entertainment as it is rather opinionated. What your saying right now could applied to any entertainer out there you don't find talented.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, but you'd be wrong and in the wrong thread - and the current Pope isn't a renaissance era Pope, but still presides over an institution that dictates against sexual health causing the spread of devastating diseases, particularly in Africa.

Perhaps wrong, but that's (1) debatable and (2) kind of the point.

Well, I'm not sure if Galileo Galilei would agree with that description. The church was in many cases more of an oppressor than a catalyst. But let's say that we give the church credit for the development of Western civilization, and by extension the progress made in arts and sciences, wouldn't we also have to consider all the bad things that the western civilization is responsible for, and give the church credit for that as well? I mean, if we give the church credit for Newton's theory of gravity, wouldn't we also have to give the church credit for Hitler?

No, to do that for either of those last two would be silly. Though, it's not all good, it's been overwhelmingly so. The church was kind of responsible for Fidel Castro, for instance. But, check this series out and look at these arguments if you want to go on any further on that topic.

I nominate Miko Grimes for worst person in the world.

 

[Vegard]

I'd add Jeremy Clarkson, but he punched Piers Morgan

That pretty much negates all his former sins and gives him diplomatic immunity.

 

[LeMansAid]

Serious answer: the Kardashians et al.

Ironically it seems you might have just done "a Kardashian". Given the opportunity to post something worthwhile and at least in spirit offer a morsel of dignity to people that have suffered, by way of recognising true suffering, you instead posted a vapid whine about something of little to no consequence.

Have you seen Life Is Beautiful? You just prattled on about a stupid riddle, to the face of, and in lieu of properly acknowledging, a Jew suffering through the holocaust.

 

[DK]

But, check this series out and look at these arguments if you want to go on any further on that topic.

How convenient of you to forget to mention that the hardline Catholic station EWTN made that series.

 

[Omnis]

That's Tom Woods. He wrote a book on it. EWTN picked him up to make it a series. It's a nice production. By the way, calling EWTN hardline catholic is like calling CNN hardline news.

Anyway, this is off topic now. Close it off here.

 

[Danoff]

Seems most are going for options that amount to abuse of power whilst in the public eye. I'd be more inclined to err towards abuse of power when behind closed doors, without any perks other than satisfying cruel perversions on offer.

I can sympathise with the perils of weighing up complicated cause and effect scenarios. Sometimes people end up doing bad things for good reasons, bad things to the few for the sake of the many. I can even sympathise to an extent with those that succumb to the temptation of viewing the people they rule over as nameless and faceless pawns, ripe for the using for the leader's own gain.

What I can't get past, or comprehend, is how an adult could wield power over a child, very much with a face and a name - also with what would have been a bright future but for the adult extracting fleeting pleasure from the child, and it's rightful proper chance at life in the process. If courage is being scared but doing it anyway, then for me the worst humans are those that when faced with uncomplicated decisions, with dire consequences for another or others, and with nothing of substance to be gained, proceed to do it anyway.

I doubt I'll ever know which one the particular worst abuser is. I assume that their abuse of power would be far too effective to allow knowledge of them. Knowing and imagining the depths of human behaviour, I doubt I'll be putting forward an actual name at any point.

A lot of evidence suggests that sexuality is, to great extent, out of your control. Being attracted to underdeveloped genitalia can be the result of sexual experience at too young an age, and the cycle definitely perpetuates itself to an extent. Many pedophiles struggle their entire lives to not act on their sexual desires. Imagine that struggle for just a moment. Pick your particular sexual attraction, and imagine that you can never fulfill that desire without causing harm to them and without committing a crime. Your entire life will be unsatisfactory at best, and monstrous at worst.

Those who give in and violate children are horrible people for sure, and worthy of contempt. But are they the worst people on the planet? If I can feel any sympathy toward them, and I do, because their sexuality is not entirely within their control, then they can't be the worst people. If I can say with a straight face that homosexuality is not a choice, I have to admit that attraction to children is also not a choice.

 

[Blitz24]

If you're going to quote Scripture, we could go on to say how Cain killed roughly 16-25% of the world's population.

So we should nominate Cain? How about Nimrod then?*
*We can't nominate them because they are dead, so we'd need to relax this to worst human being ever.

 

[Tornado]

Isn't the answer obviously Mr Harold Branson (alias ‘Sir Richard Branson), the World's Most Evil Murderer?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Serious answer: the Kardashians et al.

Okay, there are some true monsters out there. I could list them all, but they have mostly be covered in this thread. Having read it, my question is this: would we appreciate the limitless potential of human kindness if we didn't understand the depths of human callousness? On other words, would we even recognise kindness for what it is if we didn't have callousness to compare it to?

Assuming for the moment that the answer is no, then the Kardashians are the worst people in the world. They produce nothing, consume everything, desecrate our culture and leech off everyone around them.

As far as I know, the Kardashian clan is paid for attracting attention to products and/or services and everyone who pays them to do so, does so voluntarily and for their own benefit. That makes them the opposite of a leech actually, since people continue to pay them to attract attention to their products/services, they must be very successful in doing so. Therefore, not leeches.

 

[TheCracker]

As far as I know, the Kardashian clan is paid for attracting attention to products and/or services and everyone who pays them to do so, does so voluntarily and for their own benefit. That makes them the opposite of a leech actually, since people continue to pay them to attract attention to their products/services, they must be very successful in doing so. Therefore, not leeches.

When you say that they're paid for attracting attention to products or services - do you mean that their shows are basically little more than infomercials with added drama - or are you referring to the accompanying commercial breaks before/between/after the show? - having not being able to watch more than ten seconds of KUWTK without wanting to bleach my brain, i'm unsure of the point you're making.

 

[Johnnypenso]

When you say that they're paid for attracting attention to products or services - do you mean that their shows are basically little more than infomercials with added drama - or are you referring to the accompanying commercial breaks before/between/after the show? - having not being able to watch more than ten seconds of KUWTK without wanting to bleach my brain, i'm unsure of the point you're making.

I mean that the entire purpose of their tv show is to attract ratings which attracts sponsors which in turn determines their income, just like every tv show and it's actors ever. People voluntarily watch their tv show in the millions I presume, advertisers pay big bucks to advertise on their tv show...therefore they aren't leeches because they take nothing from no one that isn't given up willingly.

 

[Famine]

So we should nominate Cain? How about Nimrod then?*
*We can't nominate them because they are dead, so we'd need to relax this to worst human being ever.

No, because there'd just be a load of answers along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the like. And they'd be wrong because the right answer is Thomas Midgeley.

I'm more interested in who people think the worst living human is, because it requires some thought.

Perhaps wrong, but that's (1) debatable and (2) kind of the point.

No, because I'm not interested in why people think people aren't the worst living human, only why they are. Pope Francis is just as valid a nomination as Barack Obama. Speaking of Barack Obama:

In the conversation for worst person alive? I don't really think so, he's not purposely killing civilians.

Relevant - and timely - but Obama's drones just killed 150 people in a foreign country with whom the USA is not at war nor does the USA have any authorisation from Congress for military action, with no idea who they were:

So I'd say Barack Obama is just as valid a nomination as Pope Francis.

There will be a poll. Later.

 

[Nessy]

With regards to the OP, very interesting subject.

I don't have any particular person in mind to suggest but it would be interesting to know, whether any/if all the people that have been suggested (so far), are psychopaths or sociopaths.