Discussion The Worst Scum?

I'm probably the worst scum for most neurotypicals. If you ask me who I think the worst scum is, it's
Her very existence irks my soul.

 

*gasps* B-B-B-But I love watching people weep with despair ;-;

 

Come on guys would a person rather be raped or murdered?

 

To be wrong

 

You totally forgot to put lawyers up there.

 

I dunno why but for me rape is the worse thing someone can do. It takes something from another person against their will. It also allows the victim to live with the fact it happen instead of murder where they are just dead. To me Rape should equal the death penalty.

 

I cannot comprehend why people would rate rapists as the worst scum. I cannot wrap my mind around it. I don't rape, nor will I ever, but I cannot fathom why raoe would be rated worse than serial murder for example.

Corrupt politicians do the most damage.

A rapist can cause a handful of people to suffer, but doesn't take a life.

A Government leader can bring ruin to a whole country.

This includes a wide range of people. I for one can take pleasure in other's suffering, regardless of whether I brought it on or not. I also may not enjoy it, or I may.

Why hate people for what they are, and not what they do. I cannot comprehend it.

Every sadist in the world, everyone that has ever watched rape porn, Hentai or otherwise deserves to die? By my estimations, that's millions of people at the very least.

Well to each their own then.

On a serious note, the leaders who do the most damage to their countries deserve to die.

This is incomprehensible to me.

I'll rather be gang raped by a hundred guys than to be killed; I find homosexuality repugnant, and wouldn't engage in it unless you were offering me something in the realm of a billion dollars (or maybe several million), not sure.

If I die, that's the end. Death is final, there's no afterlife (or if there is, I'm definitely going to hell). Death is permanent — it can't be undone. I don't want to die. I don't ever want to have to die.

I can exact revenge on my rapists anyway I want to after I've been raped, but I can never exact revenge on my murderer.

I fear death, though it's not my greatest fear.

Would you rather he raped than killed?

I'll rather be gang raped by a hundred guys than be killed.

 

There isn't a worst scum, there can only be more worse than the previous. Everything evolves, including scums. The best example are you, me and everybody else in this world.

 

Americans.

No words for me. Just that.

 

Death is the real scum. Death f*ckin' killed off Takahiro Yamato before Kaze no Stigma got completed, I'm still upset to this very day.

 

GGWP
I say Time

 

GGWP?

On another note,
I find all those who choose rapists hypocrites. So rape is worse than murder (makes no sense, but let's let it fly).

Is rape worse than torture?

You'll rather be tortured than raped?

 

Fite me nerd

 

Ya see, this is why I rate warlords over dictators. Dictators and tyrants can do thr most damage, but warlords are personel enough to make lasting damage. Dictators and tyrants just order the things to be carried out while warlords do them.

 

Bad Politicians in general. You don't have to be a dictator/tyrant. Some of the dictators in the past were good as well.

A competent dictator is >> competent democrat. An incompetent dictator << an incompetent democrat.

 

You know...somehow that makes no sense and complete sense at the same time.

 

Think of Louis XIV, Alexander the Great, Caesar, and the other Absolute Monarchs of time past.

 

An Elite Corrupt Dictator who Tricks Disabled Children and Raped them so that he could wage War against the Perverted Gentlemens because he is the Worst Pervert of all.
Oh... he also Murders Kitten for Fun.

That is the Worst Scum

 

What's NT? Or you forgot the R in NTR and that's what you meant?

Saiki doesn't give a fuck about a cat's "cuteness", he knows their true nature.

This will be a bit weird, but if you are raped, do you lose something? I mean, if you aren't a virgin, it's sex against your will. Sure, you may be disgusted because you find the person raping you grotesque and ugly, but you don't lose something. They aren't taking something from you. If you think of it as an action you could go through rape and not get some sort of trauma. Now, if someone went and took a saw and cut your right leg, then patched you up so you wouldn't bleed to death, for me that's a lot worse. You would become a disabled person plus you would have to go through a shitload of pain.

Rape is bad for one person and I actually don't think it's as bad as the world makes it to be. People are the ones who make rape something bad, because of the stigma and the shame a raped person carries. Everyone pities you or finds you disgusting. I feel like the true scum are all those families that kick out the person who was raped from their house, because it brought shame to their family. And well, if the person who was raped was in a relationship, then that would hurt that person as well. Still, death would make everyone who knew the person unhappy and the ones who were close to him/her, even more. The murderer may not ever be charged or found so they would have no one to hate.

What's worse than rape and death, but could also have rape, is torture. It's also good for revenge, but seeing it from outside, it's the worst thing you can do to someone. If you torture a person most of the day, for years, they would lose their sanity. Nonetheless, some people deserve that.

 

I did some more thinking about this, and I guess I do take your point that I didn't really mean to wrap the sadism in BDSM or whatever into my original statement. They are sort of different things, I think.

When I originally responded to this thread, the thing that was at the front of my mind was the intent of of the person doing X or Y or Z. To me, personally, the intent of someone doing bad things is the greatest determinant to whether they are "scum" to me. There are some people who are criminals by necessity (to eat or survive), and there are some people who are criminals because they enjoy to see others suffer. The differences in intent is what separates the two for me, not per say their actions exactly.

The other thing is that how much of a "scum" someone is a deeply subjective thing. We all have different values that we live by, and it's not objective in any way or another. Someone us of have different thresholds for what we consider bad. Furthermore, labeling something as "bad" doesn't mean that they "deserve to die for it". To me, I just interpreted the question as someone that I would be repulsed by.

I didn't per-say view the poll as: "Which of these would you hate to happen to you the most?" -- I think that's a slightly different question. Looking at the question this way is more so a litmus test on the act itself (e.g. "Which act is the most heinous?"), rather than the person doing the act (e.g. "Which person is the most heinous?").

I kind of viewed the question as: "Which of these would you be most unsettled by if someone you were close to (e.g. a family member or a lover), revealed this information to you?"

I didn't actually vote in this poll because I don't really really really like pitting one act against the other (e.g. "X is worse than Y because Z!"), but I'll attempt to provide an explanation why I think a lot of people picked "rapists".

Part of the reason why is intent. I, if there is any chance that there may be context to the situation that makes the crime seem less horrible.

If my brother told me he murdered someone, the first thing that would cross my mind was: Was this part of a revenge plot? Did he get caught up in gang violence or in some problems with drug dealers? I happen to believe that most murderers don't murder because they like killing people (those are the psychopaths that go on shooting sprees, but even then those are the ones who have mental problems), they murder because they are desperate or feel like they don't have an escape from an already bad situation.

The same is sort of true of a tyrant or con artist or warlord. What exactly are their motivations? If Robin Hood killed the rich and gave their money to the poor, does that make him a hero or a villain? In many of these circumstances, you need additional context before you can judge whether they are bad people or not -- and in either case, the intent of the person is often the deciding factor.

"Corrupt politicians" is also something I have complicated feelings about. The premise that most people involved in politics are corrupt is such a trope -- how exactly do you explicitly define "corruption" in the first place? Bribery? Bribery in the classic sense doesn't really happen in the US because elected officials (excluding the president) have to disclose to the state their tax forms and sources of income. What about politicians bought out by mega-corporations? The votes of politicians are public, and if you as a citizen is unhappy with the votes (the decisions/outcomes, actually) that your elected rep made, you vote them out of office at the next election. This is the premise of accountability that drives democracy and is the foundation for democratic political science.

I definitely do acknowledge that many politicians are "corrupt" (however you choose to define that), but the electorate is always capable of dismissing an elected official at the re-election depending on the outcomes the politician is able to produce. If people are broadly unhappy with the outcomes, the politician gets voted out. If the people are indifferent or happy, the politician stays in. The trend you end up seeing is that "corrupt politicians" produce "acceptable/favorable outcomes" (at least to the electorate on re-election day), and people like their own representative but hate their national congress as a whole.

If by "corrupt" you mean "disingenuous", I would wholeheartedly agree that most politicians lie and misrepresent information. It's part of the job description. In order to have been elected, a politician must have gained a winning coalition (regardless if they truly believe in the values or not). However, in order to maintain that power and survive the next re-election, their legislation and votes must remain accountable to their voters. Example: Suppose an unscrupulous Democrat senator in California (a super anti-gun state) doesn't actually care 1 cent about gun control. The big gun manufacturers promises to pay $1 million dollars if he votes NO on gun control legislation. If he agrees to the deal and votes no, he will almost certainly lose his re-election bid and his political career will be destroyed -- and therefore lose all the political power he had accumulated.

My point is, a politician in a representative democracy always chooses their words and actions based on whether or not they can be elected. Doing otherwise is political suicide. This is especially the case with high-profile politicians, since they essentially have journalists tailing them on their back every second of the day.

My point is that I don't necessarily agree with the evaluation that "corrupt politicians" are scum. Many politicians are bad-intentioned but producing good outcomes. The politicians with bad-intentioned but producing bad outcomes don't last (there's a flash scandal and they lose power quickly). And then there are politicians with good-intentions (depends on how you evaluate "good") but producing unintended bad outcomes. An example might be: "Me and all the experts genuinely believe that the Three Gorges Dam will produce lots of environmentally friendly cheap electric power for my country. Also I think the One-Child Policy will help control overpopulation in my country." 15 years later it turns out you were wrong on every count. Are we at fault for making a decision based on the best knowledge and advice of contemporaries we had at the time?

Is a doctor at fault for prescribing opioid painkiller medications before it became widespread knowledge that opioids painkillers are addictive, (resulting in the addiction drug heroin epidemic in the Northeast US)? To me, intent plays a big role. In my personal view, the "worst scum" is the kind of person who has both poor intent and produces poor outcomes.

...I got derailed here but... as for rape -- I can't think of any excuses for rape, or any "good reason" why someone would rape someone. Therefore, to me, rape is more so an immediate negative reflection of a the underlying person than per say, "murder", which is why to me, it's something that I will automatically react more negatively towards than murder per say.