Highest Kill Count

Paparazzo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

More people killed since the introduction of Abortion in the USA than in both world wars.
So American Doctors, biggest killers on earth. Second biggest Killers, the American Army, anyone seeing a pattern?

American Doctors and American Army? The names parents give kids these days are ridiculous

kowloon

Jester252 wrote: »

Colombia has a lot of the oul SK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_L%C3%B3pez_(serial_killer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Barbosa

That country, and continent, seems to spawn a disproportionate amount of serial killers. I wonder if anyone will identify what it is that causes it.

Wibbs

rgmmg wrote: »

Would they? If Germany had concentrated all their resources on the Russian front would they not have made it to Moscow before winter set it?

Probably. However that would have only been a victory in propaganda more than anything else. After all Napoleon took Moscow. Didn't do him much good. The basic problem the Germans had was they quite simply didn't have the resources in materiel and indeed economically to prosecute a war like that from the get go. Best case they might have broken the nerve of the Russian leaders(IE Joe Stalin) enough to have them sue for peace in exchange for Germany taking "living space" in the west of Russia. Even then I can't see that lasting. The Germans were playing a very close run game by entering Poland, but pretty much wrote the Nazi death warrant when they stepped over the Russian border. Even on a food production front. Germany was many decades behind most of the rest of Europe in farming techniques at the time. They ran very low on grain in 1940(IIRC?) and relied on Russian imports to feed their own. One reason why Stalin(and even Germans) were shocked that Adolf kicked off at them. It made little sense. Russia would have always won because they had the numbers and more they had the huge industrial complex to back them numbers up. EG The German Tiger tank was one of the most effective tanks of the war. Real heavy hitter. The Russian T34 wasn't it's match in technology or firepower, but the Germans only produced just over a thousand tigers, the russians produced nearly 60 thousand T34's. The latter was more reliable too. Game over time.

Very similar to the daftness of the Japanese attacking America. That was a worse decision. They had zero(no pun) hope of winning and it beggars belief they thought this was a good plan. It made Hitlers notion of going for Russia look like a work of tactical genius

jmayo

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, I don't blame them for doing this. I've become acquinted with a lot of Germans who felt they inherited guilt because of the actions taken through out WW2.

Oh FFS.
So lets have a bit of revisionism and airbrush the truth because it is inconvenient.
Fook that.
Peoples and nations need to account for their past or it shall be repeated.
The Turks are also engaged in this sh*** where they refuse to acknowledge what they did to the Armenians.

As one German said to me 20 odd years ago.
"I don't feel personnally guilty for any of the sutff that happened, although all my older relatives fought and God knows what they did, but I do think the German people need to remember what they did."

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

the inventor of Domestos has the highest kill count... it does kill 99.9% of all known germs ya know :P

its pure and utter germocide

Would domestos kill the good bacteria in Yakult ?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Mongols depopulated large areas of China. Down as far as the rice fields where their horses couldn't travel easily.

Mongols have been accused of killing half the population of China, Russia, Hungry and up to 90% of Persians

Ah are there any Mongol records of all these atrocities or is it only their enemies who got to write history ?

jmayo

rgmmg wrote: »

As they were only fighting on a single front their supply lines could have been strengthened earlier with the additional resources available? Am no expert in any case, just wondering why the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own.

The Russians had the manpower, didn't give a sh** about losing it, eventually had the means of production far removed and built some way more reliable stuff that could cope with their battlefield conditions.
The German army didn't alone suffer from poor overstretched supply lines, their equipment right down to their clothing could not coep with the conditions.

Border-Rat wrote: »

Germany would never have defeated the USSR. The USSR had 24,000 tanks in 1941. Germany had 3,700. The USSR had 6 million soldiers with logistical preparation for the immediate installment of 18 million reserves. It had more subs in its black sea fleet than the entire German navy. It had more amphibious tanks (An offensive weapon, state of the art) than the entire French army had tanks. There is of course the leftist/democratic/communist myth that the Red Army, though plentiful, was full of junk.

Which is of course lies. Their obsolete tanks (E.g. the T-28 from 1933) had double the armor of Germany's most advanced tank (PIV developed in 1937). The poor little peasant army had state of the art equipment. It had 470,000 airborne troops moved into the Ukraine in 1941. Of course that little development is conveniently airbrushed from history.

The Red Army's problem was not numbers but leadership.
Stalin had purged so much of it like in 1937/38.
Something like 7% of the office corp had been axed, the lucky ones got exile and eventually back.
The unlucky ones got executed.
The ability of the Red Army was shown by how disastrous the Finnish invasion turned out.

Wibbs wrote: »

Russia would have always won because they had the numbers and more they had the huge industrial complex to back them numbers up. EG The German Tiger tank was one of the most effective tanks of the war. Real heavy hitter. The Russian T34 wasn't it's match in technology or firepower, but the Germans only produced just over a thousand tigers, the russians produced nearly 60 thousand T34's. The latter was more reliable too. Game over time.

The T34 was one of the best tanks of WWII.
It wasn't just a matter of numbers, it was highly reliable and maneuverable in comparison to the Tiger or Panthers.

Also it wasn't just down to one side having a bigger industrial complex.
Russian equipment like the T34 or the PPSh submachine gun were more easily mass producable than some of the German equivalents.
Also they were designed and built with reliablity and ease of maintenance in mind.

LaVail

120 kills playing domination on nuketown

robp

Lisandro wrote: »

It is human in the sense that it possesses human DNA and reacts to nutrition from the mother, thanks very much for pointing out that triviality. By "human life", I mean whether or not it is alive to the extent of being sentient, self-aware, conscious, etc., you know, the usual criteria we use when devising an ethical test as to whether or not it's moral to interfere with any life form.

I don't consider it evil at all, no more evil than the thousands of skin cells that die every time I bash my hand off a wall.

So it's ludicrous to debate whether or not we should have to apply the same moral criteria to a foetus as we do to a born human?

Since when has conception been the determinant of whether or not it's a moral act? If your premise were true, a single sperm cell would not be human, whereas an impregnated ovum cell would.

You don’t think it deserves legal protection other people do, fine, but to compare a foetus to sperm or ovum/sperm is a mocking misrepresentation.

You are denying abortion happened if you imply biologically its equal to ovum/sperm. I am not sure if you mean that but it could be interpreted that way. Skin cells don’t have ‘significant moral value’ as do embryos according to the Irish council of Bioethics. Are each one of those academics wrong and you right? Anyway morals doesn’t really come into this.
You acknowledge its human and it’s a single entity so by that logic you can accept it earns a place on this thread even if plenty of people don’t feel its wrong. A lot of the examples on this thread aren’t necessarily wrong e.g. self-dense during war. End of story.

AnonoBoy

forfuxsake wrote: »

That is literally the second most retardest thing I have ever heard.

Yup. You totally get it alright.

sebastianlieken

Wow. This thread has gone slightly off topic. And when I say "slightly", I literally mean the exact opposite. :pac:

Still though, some posters have brought up some seriously dark parts of history and some unfathomably evil people I was never aware existed! I have a pretty good stomach for this kind of thing, but still, wow... some people actually are monsters!:(

Lisandro

robp wrote: »

You don’t think it deserves legal protection other people do, fine, but to compare a foetus to sperm or ovum/sperm is a mocking misrepresentation.

This is about the morality of ending a pregnancy. Moral and immoral acts don't take place without a moral framework with which to assess them. For interfering with life, that framework is assessed by the capability to be affected by harms, encompassing capabilities of self-consciousness, personhood, autonomy, sentience, temporal awareness and others, many of which a foetus lacks. An impregnated ovum and a foetus may not be physically the same, but that does little to change the moral situation.

robp wrote: »

You are denying abortion happened if you imply biologically its equal to ovum/sperm.

No I didn't. The determinant of whether or not abortion happens is its taking place after conception, not its status as a moral act or not.

robp wrote: »

Skin cells don’t have ‘significant moral value’ as do embryos according to the Irish council of Bioethics. Are each one of those academics wrong and you right?

Define "significant moral value" and explain the context in which it is used.

robp wrote: »

Anyway morals doesn’t really come into this

But you just brought morals into it in the previous sentence.

robp wrote: »

You acknowledge its human and it’s a single entity so by that logic you can accept it earns a place on this thread

A single collection of cells, yes. A single organism with personhood, no.

robp wrote: »

A lot of the examples on this thread aren’t necessarily wrong e.g. self-dense during war. End of story.

That's not what you're here to argue. See above.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

The German Tiger tank was one of the most effective tanks of the war. Real heavy hitter. The Russian T34 wasn't it's match in technology or firepower, but the Germans only produced just over a thousand tigers, the Russians produced nearly 60 thousand T34's. The latter was more reliable too. Game over time.

Not really fair to compare the Tigers to T34's. T34 (26 Tonnes) wasn't a match for the larger German tanks, but far cheaper to make.


492 King Tigers 70 tonnes.
1,300 Tiger I's 60 tonnes
Over 6,000 Panthers were made. 44 Tonnes

But the Russians also had 3,850 IS2's 46 Tonnes, 5,219 KV's 45 Tonnes.
So were roughly equally matched in heavy tanks.


Germans lost a lot of tanks due to reliability and fuel shortages.

which leads to - Top Tank aces scored higher than most fighter aces and doesn't include the numbers of other vehicles destroyed. Not all vehicles destroyed would have life lost, but many would involve multiple deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann

He was credited with the destruction of 138 tanks and 132 anti-tank guns, along with an unknown number of other armoured vehicles, making him one of Germany's top scoring panzer aces, together with Johannes Bölter, Ernst Barkmann, Otto Carius and Kurt Knispel who was the top scoring ace of the war with 168 tank kills.[3]

Wittmann is most famous for his ambush of elements of the British 7th Armoured Division, during the Battle of Villers-Bocage on 13 June 1944. While in command of a single Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger he destroyed up to 14 tanks and 15 personnel carriers along with 2 anti-tank guns within the space of 15 minutes.

RDM_83 again

A man that was indirectly responsible for a truly stupendous death toll but still has a positive death to life ratio Fritz Haber.

The Haber-Bosch process for fixing nitrogen allowed countries without a source of saltpetre (landlocked Germany) to maintain a functioning war machine over a long period. He was also directly involved in development of chemical weapons (poison gas) in the during the WW1.

On the flip side the process allowed intensive fertilizer driven agriculture which allows the worlds present population to be maintained, wiki says over half the worlds population being dependent on it.

So he could be considered as partially responsible for the 160 million deaths in armed conflict in the 20th century but also maybe 3 Billion more people alive today. So IMO a pretty good ratio

robp

Lisandro wrote: »

This is about the morality of ending a pregnancy. Moral and immoral acts don't take place without a moral framework with which to assess them. For interfering with life, that framework is assessed by the capability to be affected by harms, encompassing capabilities of self-consciousness, personhood, autonomy, sentience, temporal awareness and others, many of which a foetus lacks. An impregnated ovum and a foetus may not be physically the same, but that does little to change the moral situation.



No I didn't. The determinant of whether or not abortion happens is its taking place after conception, not its status as a moral act or not.



Define "significant moral value" and explain the context in which it is used.



But you just brought morals into it in the previous sentence.



A single collection of cells, yes. A single organism with personhood, no.



That's not what you're here to argue. See above.

I know what I am here to argue actually, thank you very much.

You should read the Irish Council of Bioethics report on embryo use. I am not going present their entire results here. Morals shouldn't come into this discussion but I wanted to show through the power of anaology there is a CONSENSUS that ending a pregnancy is not equal to shedding skin cells, (which is actually something rather demeaning to women, not that you would know anything about that).
Of course the report is about assigning moral value but it is well informed by biology which is useful for the purpose of this discussion. I grant your capable for digging it up yourself. Have a nice day fellow single collection of cells.

Dravokivich

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS.
So lets have a bit of revisionism and airbrush the truth because it is inconvenient.
Fook that.
Peoples and nations need to account for their past or it shall be repeated.
The Turks are also engaged in this sh*** where they refuse to acknowledge what they did to the Armenians.

It's not revisionism, you can't hold those who weren't directly envolved accountable. There are other sources outside of school available to them that they can learn of it from.

There's a lot of fodder in our history that we are not taught of in school, such as the influence Irish played on the slave trade.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

The sh** they did in places like Nanking is pure evil.
What is worse the fooking Japanese to this day have not owned up to the stuff they did.
They have airbrushed their history and Japanese kids are not taught the truth about their past.
No wonder some of ex POWS always refused to buy anything Japanese.

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, I don't blame them for doing this. I've become acquinted with a lot of Germans who felt they inherited guilt because of the actions taken through out WW2.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS.
So lets have a bit of revisionism and airbrush the truth because it is inconvenient.
Fook that.
Peoples and nations need to account for their past or it shall be repeated.
The Turks are also engaged in this sh*** where they refuse to acknowledge what they did to the Armenians.

As one German said to me 20 odd years ago.
"I don't feel personnally guilty for any of the sutff that happened, although all my older relatives fought and God knows what they did, but I do think the German people need to remember what they did."

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not revisionism, you can't hold those who weren't directly envolved accountable. There are other sources outside of school available to them that they can learn of it from.

Nobody is saying those who weren't alive then are directly accountable, but here is the rub, a fair few of the Japanese that were involved have been alive up to the last few years.

For a start some of those who carried out as inhuman experiments as those carried out by Mengele ended up working in universities and research labs in Japan right up to modern times.
Should they be allowed fade into the background where younger people are not told what they did in the name of their country ?

BTW how many kids bother doing research outside of school?
If the basic school textbooks gloss over it, only some more interested students will bother to go digging for the facts.
Remember the storm a few years ago when the Chinese got rightly pis*ed off when new history textbooks referred to the Nanking massacre as the Nanking incident.

I really can't believe that you think it is ok to airbrush out inconvenient facts in a nation's or race's history because it is might cause the current generation to actually think about their immediate ancestors and their states history.
It is sh** like that means that we never learn and are bound to repeat the same stuff over and over again.

Dravokivich wrote: »

There's a lot of fodder in our history that we are not taught of in school, such as the influence Irish played on the slave trade.

Yes there are ommissions, but imho the fact that Irish people were involved in the slave trade both as traders/masters and victims is kinda different to ommitting that your countrymen, including some who are still alive, engaged in wholesale extermination and massacres in the name of your country.

Lisandro

robp wrote: »

I know what I am here to argue actually, thank you very much.

That non-malicious deaths of humans sometimes takes place is not disputed. The argument that abortion is the destruction of a human life relies on the foetus having a personhood to destroy in the first place.

robp wrote: »

You should read the Irish Council of Bioethics report on embryo use.

Indeed I have. They present arguments for and against and adopt a middle ground stance. We are allowed to challenge anything on that spectrum of arguments.

robp wrote: »

Morals shouldn't come into this discussion but I wanted to show through the power of anaology there is a CONSENSUS that ending a pregnancy is not equal to shedding skin cells

Consensus (especially on a qualitative issue) does not imply correctness. Nor does it get rid of the fact that not everybody on the council holds the same stance. Some are against abortion, some have no problems with it. What this shouldn't affect is my ability to hold a distinct opinion, especially given that moral philosophers have taken both sides and in between on the issue. Then again, argument from authority is a nice way to dismiss my opinion without actually engaging with the issues.

robp wrote: »

(which is actually something rather demeaning to women, not that you would know anything about that)

Why do you feel the need to make personal snarks against me? You don't even know me, never mind what my attitudes to women are.

robp wrote: »

Of course the report is about assigning moral value but it is well informed by biology which is useful for the purpose of this discussion. I grant your capable for digging it up yourself. Have a nice day fellow single collection of cells.

Biology does not translate to moral value. That is why morality is not an empirical science, hence they provided arguments from both sides. Once again, you are arguing sheerly from authority that something is wrong without considering the moral framework within which it takes place. My point is that the morality of a situation depends on the capacity of the entity to which the act is done to be self-conscious, have a temporal awareness, a distinct personhood and experience pain in a way comparable to that of moral, autonomous beings. It can also depend on other things, such as harms caused to those associated with the entity, but in the case of abortion, a foetus is to good approximation an isolated entity. If you really think I view every living thing as a single collection of cells as you suggest in your last line, then you haven't bothered considering the moral situation beyond "ending life is bad."

robp

Lisandro wrote: »

That non-malicious deaths of humans sometimes takes place is not disputed. The argument that abortion is the destruction of a human life relies on the foetus having a personhood to destroy in the first place.



Indeed I have. They present arguments for and against and adopt a middle ground stance. We are allowed to challenge anything on that spectrum of arguments.



Consensus (especially on a qualitative issue) does not imply correctness. Nor does it get rid of the fact that not everybody on the council holds the same stance. Some are against abortion, some have no problems with it. What this shouldn't affect is my ability to hold a distinct opinion, especially given that moral philosophers have taken both sides and in between on the issue. Then again, argument from authority is a nice way to dismiss my opinion without actually engaging with the issues.



Why do you feel the need to make personal snarks against me? You don't even know me, never mind what my attitudes to women are.



Biology does not translate to moral value. That is why morality is not an empirical science, hence they provided arguments from both sides. Once again, you are arguing sheerly from authority that something is wrong without considering the moral framework within which it takes place. My point is that the morality of a situation depends on the capacity of the entity to which the act is done to be self-conscious, have a temporal awareness, a distinct personhood and experience pain in a way comparable to that of moral, autonomous beings. It can also depend on other things, such as harms caused to those associated with the entity, but in the case of abortion, a foetus is to good approximation an isolated entity. If you really think I view every living thing as a single collection of cells as you suggest in your last line, then you haven't bothered considering the moral situation beyond "ending life is bad."

I never said ending life is inherently bad, so its wrong to assume that I believe that. I completely acknowledge that biology does not translate into morality. Its utterly silent on the matter. Yet morality is continually brought up by you. Personhood is not a solid concept. Its only an idea that elevates us above other species. We are just another species of animal. I could easily argue that some of the mass murderers on this thread have a lesser personhood on the basis of their crimes but it wouldn't change anything because its complexly irrelevant. Likewise your posts have never undermined the logic of abortion being included in this thread. BTW I share your sentiment council of Bioethics is not beyond criticism, its reports prove that beyond doubt. Yet their logic can contain alot depth than is possible on Boards.ie Consensus aren’t always right but they are rather convincing. No one is challenging your right to holding to a distinct opinion but you have no right for it to be considered reasonable.
You might consider what I wrote a snide comment but its far less offensive than your words are to any women who has ever been pregnant. Its worth knowing that.

Lisandro

robp wrote: »

I never said ending life is inherently bad...Yet morality is continually brought up by you.

Then what is the point you're trying to make? If you're not pressing a moral issue, then precisely what's your objection?

robp wrote: »

Personhood is not a solid concept. Its only an idea that elevates us above other species. We are just another species of animal. I could easily argue that some of the mass murderers on this thread have a lesser personhood on the basis of their crimes

No. Personhood is an entity's capability to be have and be aware of one's identity, to be continually conscious of its surroundings and to have free will, not a moral judgement on their actions.

robp wrote: »

Likewise your posts have never undermined the logic of abortion being included in this thread.

A thread about killing humans generally means humans in the way we interact with them in the real world. If you want to get semantic, foetuses have the physical properties of a human, but they don't have the same intellectual properties. Whether we classify them as deaths, moral or not, is irrelevant, the reason I brought it up was to address the subtle attack on abortion by a poster on page two.

robp wrote: »

BTW I share your sentiment council of Bioethics is not beyond criticism, its reports prove that beyond doubt. Yet their logic can contain alot depth than is possible on Boards.ie Consensus aren’t always right but they are rather convincing. No one is challenging your right to holding to a distinct opinion but you have no right for it to be considered reasonable.

And I contested that stance.

robp wrote: »

You might consider what I wrote a snide comment but its far less offensive than your words are to any women who has ever been pregnant. Its worth knowing that.

Is an honest opinion really as offensive as a deliberate personal remark? I'm not calling anybody a moral monster, I'm not obliged to agree that foetuses have moral value, if they find my disagreeing offensive, then it's their problem for not tolerating a different opinion.

Sleepy

Any chance a mod could cut the off-topic abortion stuff into any of the bazillion other abortion threads? Seriously derails an otherwise very interesting thread.

Hawk Wing 2

Blokhin personally bumped off 7000 in a month alone, thats some going, Stalin gave him the gold star for that operation

sheesh

luke skywalker when he blew up the deathstar

I had friends on it the bastard

Capt'n Midnight

sheesh wrote: »

luke skywalker when he blew up the deathstar

I had friends on it the bastard

There were at least 1.97 Billion on Alderaan

Lisandro

Sleepy wrote: »

Any chance a mod could cut the off-topic abortion stuff into any of the bazillion other abortion threads? Seriously derails an otherwise very interesting thread.

Well, I agree that it's off-topic, because I don't really think it relates to kill counts. In any case, I've said enough for me, so I'm willing to let it die.

Odysseus

Sleepy wrote: »

Any chance a mod could cut the off-topic abortion stuff into any of the bazillion other abortion threads? Seriously derails an otherwise very interesting thread.

I would concur with this, I found it a really interesting thread and was really impressed with the quality of posts until the thread was de-railed.

Tarkus

The tobacco companies...all for a buck. & they knew it was killing people all along even while they lied.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8

robp

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Thug Behram (1765-1840) of the Thugee cult in India was thought to have individually killed 931 people during his time with group. He was hanged by the British in 1840. Behram himself put his final total at just over 150.

Note the name 'Thugee', this the origin of the word thug in the English language.

I think this Thug Behram guy is winning this thread and certainly in the non-firarm category. How many rivals be-quested the English language with a word.