I vote Hitler! For the first time! Again!
I was going to link to a Hitler campaign poster, but I just can’t do it.
I suspect he was upset that Jesus was knocked out in round one.
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior of Mankind, you’re OUTTA HERE.
Curtis, you can pretty much just assume Jesus is never gonna get the benefit of the doubt here.
That said, I vote for this guy:
- Mani-Founder of Manichaeism
because I’d never heard of him before today.
I would definitely NOT vote for Jesus in the first round, or probably until the last few rounds, if the criterion was “most overall influence.” But if you’re going to start considering negative/positive influence, etc., then J.C. gets my vote.
The rules still state that you should vote for the person with the most negative influence. Only this time it’s apparently supposed to be balanced by positive influence as well.
Edit: Oops. Not supposed to discuss votes, either.
Dear OP.
Since we’re going with the long and questionable form of Jesus’ title, I should point out that Buddhist thought identifies many Buddhas prior to the historical Buddha, as well as many yet to come. As I understand it, there is only one Jesus, one Mohammad, one Moses. Therefore, I suggest that ‘Buddha’ be changed to ‘the Tathagata, Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni Buddha, the Blessed One’.
Thank you
.
Fictional characters go first. Jesus must go.
There is no compelling fact that Jesus existed. He was created by Christin writers a couple centuries after he was supposed to have been around.
The original thread should have been locked pretty much immediately and you should have been given a mulligan. You shouldn’t have used your mulligan on the thread, but you did anyways. You were unclear with the rules and are trying like hell for it to end up the way you want it to.
Just let it go. Request for this to be locked and wash your hands of the whole deal.
I vote Jesus, because if he was offered up for sacrifice before, he set a nasty precedent.
IMO, Jesus was okay.
I vote for #6, St. Paul. Talk about an asshole.
Well hell…in that case, I don’t have a clue who to vote for…nevermind.
Hitler. Again.
I can see that after the Religion Hate Club has their way, it’s possible that this might actually devolve into an interesting thread, so I’ll get in early with my nomination:
Queen Isabella I of Spain.
Sponsored Columbus’ expedition to the Americas. Not only did that lead to an enormous amount of destruction in the Americas themselves, unknown numbers of deaths, genocide and the obliteration of entire cultures, it also contributed to the wholesale raiding of East Africa for slaves, and the great wealth it generated for Spain enabled them to build up their armies and go tromping all over Europe for the next 100 years causing devastation there too.
It’s worth noting that by the time she gave Columbus the go-ahead he’d been hawking his plans around Europe for seven years, and he was already 41, so it’s possible that if she hadn’t ultimately approved the voyage, it simply wouldn’t have happened.
On top of all that, instituted the Spanish Inquisition, and persecuted Jewish and Muslim populations in Spain (which is why she gets the nod, and not Columbus himself)
Second time I’ve looked at this list, and it still makes limited sense to me. All the remarks after the person are slanted and further slant is pressed upon by looking for negative influences – as mentioned repeatedly in both threads.
Should a person vote to oust the Wright brothers because planes were used bomb cities and in the 9/11 crimes? And while perhaps war and terrorism are excused, lost luggage and the pain of air travel is not.
What is one to make of “Thomas Edison-American Scientist, 1,000+ inventions”? I can think of two, and one of those was most likely someone else’s work.
But the cream of the crop has to be “Napoleon Bonaparte-French Emperor, Waged Napoleonic Wars” Is that a joke?
The fault seems to be with the Hart list. I vote against the entire list and it’s weirdness.
That’s a load of bull. Plenty of pagan writers mentioned Jesus as a real person including Tacitus. Anyway in the name of a Hitler bandwagon I change my vote to Adolf.
Jesus was long dead before Tacitus had been born.
That being said, I’d be willing to concede that there was a person alive named Jesus.
Edit: Why even remake the thread? The rules are the same, not enough for anyone to change their votes. I’m still convinced that you were upset that Jesus was the first to go and wanted a redo.
Mohammed.
It sounds like you’re objecting more to the brief summaries, which are Curtis’ not Hart’s. I’ve only glanced at Curtis’, but one example (“65. Queen Isabella I-Queen of Spain, Sponsored Columbus’ Expeditions”) is completely opposite Hart’s intention, who makes clear in the very first paragraph of his biography of Isabella that Columbus’ expedition is not the major reason for her inclusion!
I’ll also go with the promulgators of Abrahamic religions as having the most negative influence. While civilization seems to owe much to them, there were ancient civilizations (Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, etc.) that seemed to do quite well without monotheism. And indeed, pagan Kings (perhaps even the infamous Attila the Hun!) may have been at least as “chivalrous” as their Christian opponents.
I might prefer to eliminate Paul, Mohammed, Constantine before Jesus but to keep our bandwagons in synch I’ll vote Jesus this round.
(I think Tacitus is given little weight on the issue of Jesus’ historicity. From what I’ve gleaned Jesus was historic, but John the Baptist was the “more important” prophet of that time, Jesus’ “promotion” being partly an accident of history.)
Jesus. If the vote doesn’t go the way you want, will you redo the game without the moral judgement part? I guarantee you, if you do it that way, Jesus won’t get knocked out in the first round anymore.
My favorite games are the ones where the ref changes the rules because he doesn’t like the results.