What's the difference between a conquerer and a mass murderer ?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Kid Kurdy
Really, is there any difference ?

Council#13
A conquerer has a goal, such as taking over a certain area. A mass murderer just wants to kill as many people has he/she can.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
Really, is there any difference ?

The differance is only in perception.

Alliance
Historical interpretation? Theoretically it is possible to conquer something without killing anyone.

lil bitchiness
Small scale. Such as Sudetenland.

But if we are talking about a conquerer, assuming a competent one, it is not very probable that such would ever happen.
All great conquerers have killed a vast amount of people.

People generally tend to fight back.

lorddreamer
A mass murderer just kills a mass amount of people, while a conquerer takes over a large amount of space. A conquerer doesn't need to kill everyone, and if he does, he's doing it for a reason.

Alliance
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Small scale. Such as Sudetenland.

But if we are talking about a conquerer, assuming a competent one, it is not very probable that such would ever happen.
All great conquerers have killed a vast amount of people.

People generally tend to fight back.

So instead, the distinction is intention?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lorddreamer
A mass murderer just kills a mass amount of people, while a conquerer takes over a large amount of space. A conquerer doesn't need to kill everyone, and if he does, he's doing it for a reason.

Wait? conquerer kills for a reason, and mass murder kills for fun? That does't really sound right.

Can you give examples.

Originally posted by Alliance
So instead, the distinction is intention?

Im not saying im right, im just saying from historical perspective (that I am familiar with) there isn't a great distinction.

For a conquerer to actually conquer something, he will encounter countless oppositions, life threats, from external as well as internal subjects...etc.

Invading, if you will, is hardly no kill job. Maybe somewhere it is, but at some point resistance is bound to happen, no?

Bardock42
Conquerors usually do not directly kill. One might see that as a difference. Though that is pedantic. In the general understand you could say a conqueror is usually a mass murderer.

Lord Coal
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
People generally tend to fight back.

A rather annoying and unfortunate habit......

mad mad mad

Vinny Valentine
A Conquerer isn't one person.

A Mass Murderer Is.

Technically a Conquerer isn't killing people, he's getting others to do it.

I see a Difference.

Krystal_Dragon7
Admittedly, mass murderers are murderers with no true intention, but conquerers on the other hand are mass murderers WITH true intention. They kill large amounts of people to gain a large amount of land or some other resource. Quite simply conquerers are GREEDY mass murderers but murderers all the same.

Strangelove
A man's called a traitor, or liberator.

A rich man's a thief, or philanthropist

Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader?

It's all in the which label is able to persist

http://www.playbill.com/images/photos/wicked2_1068054195.jpg

KingTut
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wait? conquerer kills for a reason, and mass murder kills for fun? That does't really sound right.

Can you give examples.

I see what he is saying. Conquerors might not kill for a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. However, that isn't really even relevant. A conqueror might have "fun" taking over a large amount of space. A mass murderer on the other hand, might kill someone without the desire to build an empire. All conquerors are mass murderers, but not all mass murderers are conquerors.

King Kandy
A Conquer tries to seeze control of a populace, a Mass murderer tries to kill a populace.

pcp
Conquerers are the good guys.

Seth Wynd
Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
Really, is there any difference ?

A good lawyer.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
Really, is there any difference ?

Yes.

AlexanderTheGreat conquered huge areas but largely left the populations intact.

guy222
Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
Really, is there any difference ?

Husein/Amin very disgraceful rulers. The Green River Killer/Ted Bundy/Dahmer very evil ppl. Not much of a difference.

Seraphim XIII
Originally posted by Council#13
A conquerer has a goal, such as taking over a certain area. A mass murderer just wants to kill as many people has he/she can.

Who are you to say all Mass Murderers just 'kill people'? Maybe they have goals as well.

Penelope
How does a conquer0r truely "Conquer" without bloodshed?

Council#13
Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
Who are you to say all Mass Murderers just 'kill people'? Maybe they have goals as well.

Yes, but their goals are usually totally different from the conquerors, which is why the reason why the methods in which death is dealt out is different.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by KingTut
I see what he is saying. Conquerors might not kill for a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. However, that isn't really even relevant. A conqueror might have "fun" taking over a large amount of space. A mass murderer on the other hand, might kill someone without the desire to build an empire. All conquerors are mass murderers, but not all mass murderers are conquerors.

People who really were mass murderers are one step ahead of conquerers.
A conquerer kills to gain the territory and power, and a mass murderer kills to perserve it.

So in a sence, they are one the same, at different stages.

No mass murderer killed for 'fun' or without a goal.

IHateCaesar
bitchiness i agree

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.