blah the Prussian

How do we know that what we believe to be right is right? While I do concede on the sacrificing part, ultimately we do not know what part of our moral code will be looked upon by future civilizations with disgust. So then anyone who does something someone else might not like, even if it is for the greater good, is evil?

It is unfair to judge people by the standards of our time(unless they are from our time). If Hitler lived in midieval Germany and did the Holocaust, no one would remember him. Everyone killed Jews. The thing was though, what is right and what is wrong exist in people's minds. People thought it was right to kill people of other religions, or that targeting civilians was a legit tactic. Neither of those were true now, but with no better example, people like Genghis Khan just didn't know any better.

And Genghis Khan didn't start a war to kill. If he did, that would be evil. It is a very thin line between winning ones harem through war and sending slavers out to kidnap women (which most rulers did). Ultimately, there is no difference.

So, apparently every ruler with a harem was evil. You can think that, but there was nothing specifically evil about Genghis. You want the second part? Fine. By your definition of evil, every soldier ever is evil. They did kill people, after all. What he said.

Oh, for gods sake. I said this before and I'll say it again: who wrote the documents? I don't think, for example, that someone conquered by the mongols would be a reliable source.

I actually did a whole persuasive essay arguing that Napoleon was a good guy. It was one of my better ones.

How do you know what he wanted? And okay, let's continue it here. Massacres wouldn't be okay, but it wouldn't be especially evil to commit them.

I like how you completely ignored how most of those massacres were committed by other Khans. The only one committed by Genghis was the Chinese invasion, and remember that instilling fear through massacre was a legitimate tactic back then. Hitler wanted to unite the world under an oppressive society where the Aryan Race reigned supreme. Khan wanted to unite the world under a progressive society where everyone was equal. Ultimately, I think that the ends justify the means. You can disagree with me, but the topic is not discussing the morality of Genghis Khan. We can move this into another thread, but I'd like to move on in this one.

Yeah, the traditional view of Hitler gives him too much credit.

The Mideaval world was a fucked up place. Genghis Khan gave the areas he conquered a chance to surrender. If they had done so, nothing bad would have happened to them. Genghis Khan had a noble ambition of uniting the world, ending war, and bringing his liberal policies to the world. Did he use unethical means tho achieve these ends? Hell yes. The thing is, though, everyone else used those same means, and didn't have such a noble goal. By the standards of our time, Genghis Khan would be a monster. But, by the standards of the Mideaval ages, he was a just and fair ruler, and the Mongol Empire was probably the best place in the world to live. To judge historical figures by the standards of our time is unfair. On a side note, I find it humorous that you and I get in deadlocked debates in every thread that we are in. Edit: Who wrote those documents about him? There is historical bias to consider. Edit 2: A large amount of these atrocities were committed by future Khans. I'm talking about Genghis specifically, not the Mongols.

Yeah, but consider that everyone else was far worse. Christians and Muslims slaughtered each other daily, in the New World the Aztecs based an entire religion around killing, and several different popes killed more Jews than a certain German dictator ever did. Genghis never did anything pointlessly. He created a reputation of a brutal conqueror so his foes would be terrified of him. Also, any city that surrendered to him would be spared, which was better than everyone else. At the time, targeting civilians was a perfectly legit method of warfare. Everyone else did it, but you don't see, for example, Christopher Columbus not getting a holiday despite being responsible for far more deaths than the Khan was. Ultimately, you have to judge people based on the standards of the time.

Yeah, those who said Hitler have guts, but they're just wrong. Just because men like Stalin and Mao don't get enough hate, doesn't mean Hitler gets too much. Also, consider the fifty million people Hitler indirectly killed by starting World War II. In addition, his plan for the Holocaust went much deeper. He planned to kill every single Russian that he conquered. So no, Hitler does not get too much hate.

Yeah, he never banned slavery outright, as it would have torn the Empire apart. However, he made it possible for them to be free, which was better than anything else at the time. Mother Theresa and Gandhi both have immunity because if anyone insults them, it will start a massive flame war. But here's a factoid for you: Gandhi was a staunch supporter of Hitler, because Hitler fought the British. So much for passive resistance. Mother Theresa was genuinely awful. She denied her patients painkillers because "there suffering made Jesus happy."

Pretty self explanatory, really. So. Genghis Khan, in my mind, was a hero. In an age where burning heretics at the stake was commonplace, he brought equality for women, freedom of speech, and abolition of the lands he conquered to all of Asia. He opposed slavery, only tortured those who had it coming, and respected diplomatic immunity. And yet, he is viewed as a brutal tyrant, because all non-Christians are obviously the spawn of the devil. In the mideaval times, you did not change the world for better or for worse without getting your hands dirty. And yes, I did steal that from Attack on Titan.

Jarod is a hero for keeping the evil nazis of Daein in check. It was a true tragedy that he fell to the dawn brigade, aka neo nazis.

Hello? Anyone?

I was making an analogy. This topic is not about video games.

Yeah, 14000 years ago. Just like how Pong is a perfect representation of contemporary video games.

These tribes are a tiny minority of humanity, and do not represent what humans are.

We have free time to do things other than find food. I meant that we don't have to devote every second of our lives to survival.

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant that we don't need to collect food.

Destroying the environment is bad, but, as you said, it would hurt us, so I don't support it. Do you have any idea how badly your life would suck if you were anything other than human. Our intellect has gotten us to the point where we are not at risk of death if we sit around and do nothing. Yes, technology may destroy us, but it has also caused the existence of humanity to be the, quite frankly, most enjoyable of any species ever. If the disaster that you said happens, humanity will eventually rebuild. Our ability to invent is what has kept us from extinction. Even if it will be the death of us, I'd say it was worth it.

Based on the fact that not a single ant questions his role. They all just carry on, never pursuing an individual agenda.

But they do not have our free will.

What exactly is Trunicht's motivation for joining the rebellion?