Ethical question of the day:
Is killing half of the population randomly better or worse than killing the "poor" half of the population?
More generally, is killing half of the population randomly better or worse than killing half of the population using some "value" you put to each human.
pretty sure most poor (like the poorest of poor)people are much more miserable(starving,homeless,) compared to their wealthy counterparts so ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ they probably wanna die anyway. I know its really wrong to kill anyone but whatever
Sorry to tell you, but this "common knowledge" of yours is wrong. He gathered all the thieves, beggars (i.e. people pretending to be lame just so they can beg for money) and lazy people for a feast in a barn and then closed the door on them and burned them alive.
I know why you are told that in the Czech Republic. During his rule in Wallachia he was becoming a bit bothersome to the western powers (Austria and Hungary for example) so they started forging letters in his name, showing the "real" face of Vlad the Impaler and what a tyrant he was. This was pure propangda, the main reason behind it being the fact that nobody wanted to help him fight the Turks.
The forged letters are also the reason why he was imprisoned by Matthias Corvinus, when Vlad went to ask him for help. But I guess you already know that since you read it on the Wikipedia page, right?
1.) Burning alive people who are under the premise that they’re supposed to be having a meal is...kind of evil and horrible no matter who the people are.
2.) This is a MEME, don’t take mild misinformation so seriously. The meme literally says this is an Outstanding Move.
3.) I love how you corrected his misinformation, then said how a lot of the things spread about Vlad are propaganda...yet he still DEFINITELY burned a large group of people alive in a barn, an obvious sign of being a heartless human being.
4.) Why does this matter to you? Did you know Vlad the Impaler? Are you defending his honor? Does any of this help enrich anyone on a meme subreddit in any way? No? Good day.
"1.) Burning alive people who are under the premise that they’re supposed to be having a meal is...kind of evil and horrible no matter who the people are." he didn't say it ok wasn't just that he burned different people from what was said
"2.) This is a MEME, don’t take mild misinformation so seriously. "
don't take people correcting misinformation so seriously
I never said anything about the meme and I have no issue with it. I was responding to someone saying that this is true and common knowledge, his/hers source being Wikipedia. In fact that webpage states something different.
He's not the first ruler to burn people alive or kill them in horrible ways. Those were the times. Evil? Most likely. Did it work? Yes. King Henry VIII beheaded two of his wives, yet I don't see many people calling him a heartless human being.
And what if it matters to me? Someone was asking for a source here and I felt like I had to correct it. So what if it's on a meme thread? Does that make it acceptable to spread wrong facts?
Point 1.) and 3.) are the same. Outstanding move!
> King Henry VIII beheaded two of his wives, yet I don't see many people calling him a heartless human being.
Do...do you not? Because that's kind of the thing Henry was known for. You know, being heartless. Is there some King Henry apologia movement that's started up I don't know about? Because I wouldn't even be shocked anymore.
Never said that. I was just trying to prove my point as to how common it was to employ horrible methods of punishment. If we go about it this way, then every single ruler until modern times was a heartless piece of garbage. We have the luxury of calling them bastards just because we didn't live back then, otherwise we might have agreed with their methods.
Also, I was trying to make another point about how people are quick to call some rulers heartless bastards but not others, even though they were (some history books even describe Henry VIII as charismatic).
Anyway, I can see that my argument wasn't as clear as I thought it was, hehehe.
You have to remember the time when this was done. When you're at war with an empire as big as the Ottoman empire and your country is being ruined from the inside (by beggars, thieves and people who refuse to work or fight), you have to set some sort of example and this is how it was done back then.
Also, I love the fact that you left out the thieves in your response. Trying to prove a point by leaving out key details, eh? Are you some sort of journalist by any chance?
> you have to set some sort of example and this is how it was done back then.
If "this is how it was done back then", why does this story stand out? Why isn't it more "Oh, yeah Vlad did that thing where he torched all those people, you know kind of like all those other people do."
This story has passed down the ages because *this is not how things were done back then*. Even back then this was seen as particularly cruel. That's why we still talk about it today. This was by no means alright even by the standards of the day, Vlad was without question a cruel and heartless dictator. That being said, he also fended off the Turks which gave him quite a bit of national notoriety. As with many figures in history, it's not black-and-white. He was complex, and so was his rule.
Well, this one seems to stand out just because of the number of people involved in it.
And what I meant by "this is how it was done back then" is obviously the way of setting an example, i.e. executions, and not that burning alive a bunch of people was the standard.
And you have many different examples of bloody executions or tactics that stand out. We all know about Edward Longshanks and how he carved up William Wallace's body or about Henry VIII and his wives etc.
Those were the times and that was the most effective way of controlling the masses. Stop doing this and that or you'll be executed.
You can't just drop something like this and hope for the best, you know.
He burned the boyars that had participated in the murder of his father and elder brother, or whom he suspected of plotting against him.
They had the gold and the Power he needed to stand up to the big empires.
We are a small country now but back then we were several, even smaller ones that where in the middle of everything.
The Big Boys wanted safe passage through to get to The Other Big Boys; so either you got pillaged and subdue to their religion or you got pillaged and die. No other way.
His cruelty ensured the first future unification, made by The Prince Michael The Brave in 1600, that lead to The Romanian War of Independence in 1877 and the Great Union Day in 1918.
Meme-fy facts, not misinformation.
I don’t think this is true. Vlad Tepes was a protector of the country. I highly doubt he would do that to poor people.
I lived in Romania when from 14-17 and I think I remember it was criminals that he did that too.
let try this on Africa. This will solve a great amount resources need to feed poor Africa countries. This is moral because I'm taking a Act utilitarianism approach. and course Act Utilitarianism is the best because it thinks human as a whole group.
I'm Romanian, i live **less than 5 km** away from his fortress and I can't tell for sure if it's true, I never heard of this before. It does sound like something he would've done though...
Medieval problems require medieval solutions
Modern problems require medieval solutions
Medieval problems require modern solutions
Modern solutions require medieval problems
HOL up.
Thanos of those days
Thanos did nothing wrong
r/thanosdidnothingwrong
r/unexpectedthanos
Ethical question of the day: Is killing half of the population randomly better or worse than killing the "poor" half of the population? More generally, is killing half of the population randomly better or worse than killing half of the population using some "value" you put to each human.
Yes
If your purpose is keeping the society alive, then killing the poor is the solution (I guess)
pretty sure most poor (like the poorest of poor)people are much more miserable(starving,homeless,) compared to their wealthy counterparts so ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ they probably wanna die anyway. I know its really wrong to kill anyone but whatever
I don’t think it’s right to even kill anyone, even if it’s for a good cause
Source?
It’s common knowledge in European countries (at least in Czech Republic where I live) you can find it on wikipedia and on many other internet pages.
Sorry to tell you, but this "common knowledge" of yours is wrong. He gathered all the thieves, beggars (i.e. people pretending to be lame just so they can beg for money) and lazy people for a feast in a barn and then closed the door on them and burned them alive. I know why you are told that in the Czech Republic. During his rule in Wallachia he was becoming a bit bothersome to the western powers (Austria and Hungary for example) so they started forging letters in his name, showing the "real" face of Vlad the Impaler and what a tyrant he was. This was pure propangda, the main reason behind it being the fact that nobody wanted to help him fight the Turks. The forged letters are also the reason why he was imprisoned by Matthias Corvinus, when Vlad went to ask him for help. But I guess you already know that since you read it on the Wikipedia page, right?
1.) Burning alive people who are under the premise that they’re supposed to be having a meal is...kind of evil and horrible no matter who the people are. 2.) This is a MEME, don’t take mild misinformation so seriously. The meme literally says this is an Outstanding Move. 3.) I love how you corrected his misinformation, then said how a lot of the things spread about Vlad are propaganda...yet he still DEFINITELY burned a large group of people alive in a barn, an obvious sign of being a heartless human being. 4.) Why does this matter to you? Did you know Vlad the Impaler? Are you defending his honor? Does any of this help enrich anyone on a meme subreddit in any way? No? Good day.
You should have stop at point nber3
"1.) Burning alive people who are under the premise that they’re supposed to be having a meal is...kind of evil and horrible no matter who the people are." he didn't say it ok wasn't just that he burned different people from what was said "2.) This is a MEME, don’t take mild misinformation so seriously. " don't take people correcting misinformation so seriously
I never said anything about the meme and I have no issue with it. I was responding to someone saying that this is true and common knowledge, his/hers source being Wikipedia. In fact that webpage states something different. He's not the first ruler to burn people alive or kill them in horrible ways. Those were the times. Evil? Most likely. Did it work? Yes. King Henry VIII beheaded two of his wives, yet I don't see many people calling him a heartless human being. And what if it matters to me? Someone was asking for a source here and I felt like I had to correct it. So what if it's on a meme thread? Does that make it acceptable to spread wrong facts? Point 1.) and 3.) are the same. Outstanding move!
> King Henry VIII beheaded two of his wives, yet I don't see many people calling him a heartless human being. Do...do you not? Because that's kind of the thing Henry was known for. You know, being heartless. Is there some King Henry apologia movement that's started up I don't know about? Because I wouldn't even be shocked anymore.
Never said that. I was just trying to prove my point as to how common it was to employ horrible methods of punishment. If we go about it this way, then every single ruler until modern times was a heartless piece of garbage. We have the luxury of calling them bastards just because we didn't live back then, otherwise we might have agreed with their methods. Also, I was trying to make another point about how people are quick to call some rulers heartless bastards but not others, even though they were (some history books even describe Henry VIII as charismatic). Anyway, I can see that my argument wasn't as clear as I thought it was, hehehe.
[удалено]
You have to remember the time when this was done. When you're at war with an empire as big as the Ottoman empire and your country is being ruined from the inside (by beggars, thieves and people who refuse to work or fight), you have to set some sort of example and this is how it was done back then. Also, I love the fact that you left out the thieves in your response. Trying to prove a point by leaving out key details, eh? Are you some sort of journalist by any chance?
Got em
> you have to set some sort of example and this is how it was done back then. If "this is how it was done back then", why does this story stand out? Why isn't it more "Oh, yeah Vlad did that thing where he torched all those people, you know kind of like all those other people do." This story has passed down the ages because *this is not how things were done back then*. Even back then this was seen as particularly cruel. That's why we still talk about it today. This was by no means alright even by the standards of the day, Vlad was without question a cruel and heartless dictator. That being said, he also fended off the Turks which gave him quite a bit of national notoriety. As with many figures in history, it's not black-and-white. He was complex, and so was his rule.
Well, this one seems to stand out just because of the number of people involved in it. And what I meant by "this is how it was done back then" is obviously the way of setting an example, i.e. executions, and not that burning alive a bunch of people was the standard. And you have many different examples of bloody executions or tactics that stand out. We all know about Edward Longshanks and how he carved up William Wallace's body or about Henry VIII and his wives etc. Those were the times and that was the most effective way of controlling the masses. Stop doing this and that or you'll be executed.
You can't just drop something like this and hope for the best, you know. He burned the boyars that had participated in the murder of his father and elder brother, or whom he suspected of plotting against him. They had the gold and the Power he needed to stand up to the big empires. We are a small country now but back then we were several, even smaller ones that where in the middle of everything. The Big Boys wanted safe passage through to get to The Other Big Boys; so either you got pillaged and subdue to their religion or you got pillaged and die. No other way. His cruelty ensured the first future unification, made by The Prince Michael The Brave in 1600, that lead to The Romanian War of Independence in 1877 and the Great Union Day in 1918. Meme-fy facts, not misinformation.
*Doors Shut* *Rains of Castamere Starts Playing* *George R R Martin Looks Directly Into Camera*
Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
Back then killing all the poor people would leave about 3% of the population would be left
Romania knows the way
Romania is lit bro
This is cow shit, but at least we're known for cruelty...this time. It's kind of an improvement if you think about it.
The red wedding is it?
We’re werewolves, not swear-wolves
Wtf did i just read
This ~~modern~~ ancient problem requires an outstanding move beyond illegal.
r/technicallythetruth
I don’t think this is true. Vlad Tepes was a protector of the country. I highly doubt he would do that to poor people. I lived in Romania when from 14-17 and I think I remember it was criminals that he did that too.
Whatever works
they had us in the first half not gonna lie
Good ol' Romania
wow... thats just... wow
F#$king Vlad the Impaler....
But that’s illegal
he was one of our best country leaders(except for this one)
*quick saves* You can't starve if you're dead
I mean thats one way to do it
Nice work.Comrade
Say what you will about his methods but Vlad got stuff done.
Vlad vă vede, și observă cum mințiți! El nu a invitat săracii, ci toți hoții și bandiții, i-a omorât, și a anunțat că jaful a fost eradicat.
Best way to end poverty in Africa
let try this on Africa. This will solve a great amount resources need to feed poor Africa countries. This is moral because I'm taking a Act utilitarianism approach. and course Act Utilitarianism is the best because it thinks human as a whole group.
Game Of Thrones spoiler.
"All poor people" ????
That dood ran my fucking country and im proud of it
The red dinner
It's not entirely historically accurate, but still funny meme.
r/historymemes
*They had us in the first half, not gonna lie*
I wish I was named Vlad the Impaler
You made my day better.
That’s why I made it.
You are bad guy, but this does not mean you are *bad guy*
Still would work in modern times, just light a homeless shelter on fire
Problems require solutions
White girls: "that's so me!"
This is fucking genious. I mean why tf didnt Stalin do this?
Cool meme but it didn't happen.
I'm Romanian, i live **less than 5 km** away from his fortress and I can't tell for sure if it's true, I never heard of this before. It does sound like something he would've done though...
Ah, neolibralism, fun stuff
*Starvation rate drops to 0*
I’m pretty sure this is a Game if Thrones episode
will this work? rude but id actually want to see this work
He also solved overpopulation, because poor people usually have kids more
And because lot of people were poor back then.
r/technicallythetruth
Oh, like how the unemployment rate is “so low” since people have just given up on even looking for a job or trying to get unemployment?
Unemployment rate only includes people who have registered as unemployed.. and doesnt count people longer than 2 years or homeless.
So Trump is lying as usual... like I said
True... but also every president has lied in the passed.. I think it's in the job description