Which of these kinds of people do you consider the lowest scum?

Yeah, I think that would of been best.

But men can defend themselves! This obviously means men can't be victims of abuse or be victims of terrifying abuse!

(Sarcasm) lol. Seriously shocked someone was trying to make that point here.

Oh, I may also add, is a man being abused not worse than a thief stealing?

Your argument here is that "It's not as bad, so it's not here" which then defeats the justification of certain crimes in this poll being involved as they are not as bad as others such as a thief is not as bad as a mobster.

The poll involves things that aren't as bad as other ones things on the list but giving us the option to choose which ones are worse.

So your arguement falls apart.

So basically what you're saying is "You're allowed to pick things lesser than others on the list but the fact that male abuse victims are not in this list while abuse against all other living beings are is because men can defend themselves"...Which is a contradiction to the post itself for involving criminals that are worse than others.

The fact that you accepted a contradictory argument to the post for not having a male abuser option, to me, illustrates exactly WHY abusers of men should definitely be on this list, as people will make excuses for men not to be portrayed as victims despite men being more likely to be trapped in silence of their abuse with extremely little help to get out of that abuse or even be acknowledged as a victim compared to all the other groups involved in the poll.

The fact that I already got a thumbs down for saying excluding a group of criminals attacking men specifically should be on this list when all other groups of criminals targeting every other living being is on there while you get a thumbs up for making an excuse to exclude criminals that abuse men while groups harming everyone else also shows why I such a group of criminals should be up there.

But hey, who am I to sit there and say that excluding abusers of men from a poll about the "biggest scum"? We all know that abuse against men is not even comparable to a thief, right?

-Sigh-

Says who? A man is at more risk to having his life more effected by abuse from a woman than the other way around given how men are often seen as the abuser even when they call the authorities on their abusive partners and then have more risk of being the one charged for abuse.

Women have so much systemetic power in this subject that can be used to charge men for abuse for looking for help against an abusive wife.

I think the various Russian mafias are pretty bad - and get away with a hell of a lot, due to the corruption in Russia. But I wouldn't say they are worse than the cartels.

Do you know about Honduras? It has the top murder rate in the world, almost entirely due to organised crime. Not a week goes by without another couple of beheadings, shootings, tortures. The corruption is so deeply rooted that it would take the dismantling of the entire government to start to solve the problem. The Honduran cartels control the drugs flowing into Mexico, the Mexican cartels control the drugs flowing into the US and so on. And many of them will be ex-police officers, ex-military. Some of these cartels are the equivalent of small armies.

But anyway, not necessarily worth comparing like for like; they're all nasty organisations who end up involving themselves in a lot of the worst crimes in society.

Another religious, mindless drone, I presume.

The point of my comment about clergy was that those people tell others how they must live their lives but choose not a live by what they preach.
As for marrying younger in other times, 8 or 9 was NOT an acceptable age for marriage, even back then.

The point of my comment about clergy was that those people tell others how they must live their lives but choose not a live by what they preach. Never said all; WHAT i SAID WAS MOST, if you can READ, about child molestation, though I do believe personally that ALL are hypocrites.

Why not have it that they hunt them all down when they can? Your question, if vampire vigilantes, should be which type of criminal is higher in percentage, because vampires would have to hunt to stay alive, and obviously if they are moral vampires they will only feed on the bad but need to feed every day due to still being vampires, so preferebly would hunt down the criminals that are more frequently around due to there being a larger supply of blood to feed on.

Kind of like if they specifically only hunt one type of criminal yet such criminals aren't frequent enough to feed from on a day to day basis, then they're going to starve, but if they pick certain criminals that are around more than most, then they have more of a feeding supply.

Yes, thanks for the insight.

I was thinking the same thing to be honest.
;-)

I agree. Some of them do that out of necessity. However, I think drug kingpins are right up there with the others.

A bit nitpicking but I get where u are coming from.
if they have not hurt someone...are getting help that be great. Then i wont hate you...but i hate people who do hurt children

Oh good luck with your book!

So he's a vampire version of Dexter?

:|

If I had the motivation to open a dictionary, I would answer. However, I do not have that much motivation, so I will not answer.

it would depend on the degree of evil of each one. If someone cons you out of $20 is not as bad if you are conned and get your identity stolen. Or a pimp that is truly ruthless vs someone that only gets fair portion for his protection. It just depends, really.