Quantcast
Would you kill baby Hitler?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Would you kill baby Hitler?

Would you kill baby Hitler?

Yes 17 16.35%
 
No 87 83.65%
 
Total:104

Hitler's politics and ideals were derivative of the times he lived in, killing baby Hitler would only mean having a different leader for the Nazis



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Holy cow, you need to read a dictionary. Probabilistic and deterministic are mutually exclusive ideas. Educate yourself. Quantum physics has no current deterministic model, so yes it does preclude any notion of 'destiny'. 

I think it is you that needs to be educated ... 

If you think the notion of your so called precious "quantum model" is absolute then it just shows how much more ignorant you can get. How do you reconcile the fact that quantum mechanics is currently incompatible with general relatively ? 

I can see you're the type of individual who is too lazy to do cursory research to correct a misapprehension so I'll simply throw it in your face.

prob·a·bi·lis·tic
/ˌpräbəbəˈlistik/
adjective
  1. based on or adapted to a theory of probability; subject to or involving chance variation.

See, I even made it bold and underlined for you.

No physicist on the planet agrees with your argument that because there isn't a unified theory that QM's effects, observations, and research are bunk. Keep digging yourself deeper into the ground though through fundamental ignorance.

OhNoYouDont said: 

Shifting goal posts changes nothing. Whether it's 5 years or 500, you'd be hard=pressed to convince anybody that racism is a worse outcome than a world war.

Welp, you heard it here folks! I assume you find it to be more palatable to have hundreds of millions of people from the 'inferior' races to be enslaved and robbed of their freedom instead rather than risking another world war or the holocaust to fight for the freedom of other human races ...

??? How did you go from racism to slavery? We're talking about the 1940s, not the 1800s here champ. Get in the right century at least.

OhNoYouDont said: 

This is basic consequentialism, has nothing to do with self-righteousness.

Your display in a lack of consideration for alternative thoughts or views makes me doubt this and leads me to suspect that your posts are rooted in nothing other than pure arrogance ... 

Which thought of yours have I not considered? I think I've responded to all of them...

OhNoYouDont said: 

Utilitarianism isn't necessarily contingent on time. Assessing Hitler's entirely life results in a net negative utility.

So fuck the courts, liberty, and progressivism am I right if it means the "highest amount of well-being among the greatest number of people" ? Well whatever that means I hope dearly for your sake where you can find a justification for the possibility in an alternate reality where European colonial powers along with Japan continue to enslave their conquered territories unabated for many decades to come ...

So now we've not only left the appropriate century, but we've gone to an entirely new millennium? All I can do is laugh at the futile attempt here.

OhNoYouDont said: 

I too think it's time for you to stop responding because you're intellectually bankrupt on this topic.

Says the guy who's close minded LOL ... 

Racism is more than just a social stigma. It's an economic and most importantly a political stigma but I'm not surprised that you lack a lot of foresight despite being so absolute ... 

I've entertained all of your thoughts and thoroughly refuted them. In what way is that closed-minded? You sound like you're simply upset that I do not agree with your sophomoric ideas on the subject. 



haxxiy said:
Jumpin said:

The thing about killing Lenin is that he was simply a member at the top of the pile for Russian Republicans. It is highly likely a USSR-like totalitarian Empire would have emerged no matter what given the Czarist history of Russia. However, if the leftists managed to win instead, it’s possibly that they could have avoided Totalitarian rulership. But that’s a lot of people to kill in order to allow a faction like the Trotskyiests or Black Army to win. And even if that did occur, given Russian culture, there’s no guarantee the state wouldn’t revert back to a Czarist-like totalitarian state.

Also, killing Lenin opens the door to Slavic fascist rule.

Well, not even the Germans could have predicted the large effect Lenin would have after being released. I don't think the Russian situation was particularly worse than what was happening in Turkey or China, or even parts of Mainland Europe (late in the war, that is). Getting rid of him might avert the black swan event entirely.

Turkey or China wasn't a threat to humanity as we know it. Perhaps in terms of what those countries did to local peoples. China was fairly brutal in the 19th century as well as the 20th. Turkey was far more small scale. Russia had a brutal history too, genocides weren't exactly new under the USSR. What did become new is the rapid upgrading of technology. Somehow, totalitarian republics seem to have an easy time upgrading their technology at a fast rate. Probably because they don't mind starving and killing millions to push past maximum efficiency.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

They say anti-Semitism is dead... The vast majority of people would rather kill 6 million Jews (including babies) rather than one German born baby.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

I would taken him to our time and give him a iPhone. Problem solved.



Around the Network

What about baby stalin and baby mao?
But no would not kill baby hitler. Probably another would rise somewhere. The fact that hitler existed allowed society to not permit it anymore.
Although.... hum... maybe we can consider those reeducation centres in china as concentration camps?



EnricoPallazzo said:
What about baby stalin and baby mao?
But no would not kill baby hitler. Probably another would rise somewhere. The fact that hitler existed allowed society to not permit it anymore.
Although.... hum... maybe we can consider those reeducation centres in china as concentration camps?

People are tools of ideology and hate at a later age in life but no,it is not inherent at birth.



What better way to vanquish an enemy than to make him an ally.

Rather than kill him (if I had forethought of what he would achieve as an adult that we know now), I would raise to fight against the Nazis.

Imagine someone of his energy, drive, and ability to rouse the spirits within others as the main counter against the early 3rd Reich regime.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
What better way to vanquish an enemy than to make him an ally.

Rather than kill him (if I had forethought of what he would achieve as an adult that we know now), I would raise to fight against the Nazis.

Imagine someone of his energy, drive, and ability to rouse the spirits within others as the main counter against the early 3rd Reich regime.

First bolded: No need to make a young version of him an ally if his kid version was probably an ally to begin with.

Second bolded:There were enough people with his energy against the 3rd reich that sadly got shut down and witchhunted after elections so i do not really know if it would make a difference,but instead of conflict it would be nice to see his intelligence used in a more constructive way.



You can't currently diagnose a child as psychopath.

But there is a lot of new evidence from neurology, that psychopaths are born that way. And there is no treatment that can be done, with medication or otherwise. The make up of their brain is completely different. I've even read a known psychiatrist call psychopaths as another species, separate from human.

So. Maybe not kill him. But I would pay close attention, and I'd have professionals very close to the child. Unfortunately, psychopaths aren't born innocent. And one day we'll grasp this whole issue.