Quantcast
Would you kill baby Hitler?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Would you kill baby Hitler?

Would you kill baby Hitler?

Yes 17 16.83%
 
No 84 83.17%
 
Total:101
Pyro as Bill said:
"I could never kill a baby because I'm a good guy"

You wouldn't be here if not for an ancestor that killed or even ate babies.

 What does what our ancestors did have to do with our choices? If you're responsible for the things those above you in your family tree done... then that my friend, means you are directly responsible for impregnating your own mother. You monster.

Also on topic, as others have said, if it wasn't Hitler we don't know what else might have happened, the 2 great things about Hitler, 1. He failed to complete his goal and 2. He killed Hitler.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

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

This is a really poor argument to anyone who doesn't embrace the idea of destiny which is, at best, silly. But it gets worse for you because you say that even if you had the power to prevent the slaughter of millions of your fellow human beings, you would not act; which is cowardly. Perhaps even immorally so to those who believe in such things.

Would I kill baby Hilter? Absolutely, without hesitation. 

Nobody else seems to even confront the actual question. The question isn't "Would you kill a baby that may or may not cause harm to others?" which several guilt-assuaging denizens have perverted it to be. It's "Would you kill baby Hitler?" and I think it's perfectly obvious what that question entails. 

It really isn't a poor argument because the power to change the past means the power to unilaterally change the present and the future as well. It's naive to believe that the power to change the past is a one way street since every action comes with a reaction ... 

It is not out of cowardice that I refuse to exercise such a potential power for preventing the slaughter of millions of human being since it means far more reaching ramifications than you think. Without Hitler starting WWII, racism and colonialism would run far more rampant today than it would today. It is maybe you who is the immoral one ... 

Even if you interpreted the question in another way, how would one justify killing an infant that has yet to commit a crime ? More importantly did Hitler commit any other crimes along the way before he came into power as chancellor ? You don't know what the question entails and you haven't given it much thought it either ... 

I'm not sure you understood me at all. Destiny is the idea that the future is concrete, static, unalterable. It's a very naive way of thinking about the Universe and its operations, especially given quantum physics and its conclusions on this topic.

So your argument is that it's more beneficial for the world to have undergone Hitler than suffer racism for a few short years? Uh, good luck convincing anybody of that.

If I were aware that this being would eventually be responsible for starting a world war, the decision is quite simple.

Again, in my eyes you are perverting the inquiry. This is the question in my understanding:

Would you, knowing the results of Hitler's actions, kill him as a baby in order to prevent such actions from occurring?

Whether this entails time travel to the past (impossible) or the ability to predict the future (implausible) is not relevant. All that matters is whether you could kill a currently innocent baby to stop a future travesty.  



OhNoYouDont said:

I'm not sure you understood me at all. Destiny is the idea that the future is concrete, static, unalterable. It's a very naive way of thinking about the Universe and its operations, especially given quantum physics and its conclusions on this topic.

Just because the world is probabilistic does not make indeterminate. The future is unknown but that does not stop it from having predetermined outcomes and that is what my idea of a destiny is ... 

The laws of this universe does not necessarily imply the exclusion of the concept of destiny like you seem to think either ... 

OhNoYouDont said:

So your argument is that it's more beneficial for the world to have undergone Hitler than suffer racism for a few short years? Uh, good luck convincing anybody of that.

A "few short years" is a fallacious assumption on your part because you simply don't truly know how the alternative universe went ... 

Go on, try and grace everyone else in this thread about your 'absolutes' that you don't even know ...  

OhNoYouDont said: 

If I were aware that this being would eventually be responsible for starting a world war, the decision is quite simple.

Your so called righteousness comes off as nothing more than purely conceited in ignorance ...

OhNoYouDont said: 

Again, in my eyes you are perverting the inquiry. This is the question in my understanding:

Would you, knowing the results of Hitler's actions, kill him as a baby in order to prevent such actions from occurring?

Whether this entails time travel to the past (impossible) or the ability to predict the future (implausible) is not relevant. All that matters is whether you could kill a currently innocent baby to stop a future travesty.  

You seem to think that utilitarianism is the answer to everything but how do you square the fact that you're likely violating your own standards of justice by killing an innocent minor ? How does one even have a solid criteria for measuring the benefit in that ethical system ? 

May as well stop responding since you have nearly nothing of value to add to this discussion ... 



fatslob-:O said:
OhNoYouDont said:

I'm not sure you understood me at all. Destiny is the idea that the future is concrete, static, unalterable. It's a very naive way of thinking about the Universe and its operations, especially given quantum physics and its conclusions on this topic.

Just because the world is probabilistic does not make indeterminate. The future is unknown but that does not stop it from having predetermined outcomes and that is what my idea of a destiny is ... 

The laws of this universe does not necessarily imply the exclusion of the concept of destiny like you seem to think either ...

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'. 

OhNoYouDont said:

So your argument is that it's more beneficial for the world to have undergone Hitler than suffer racism for a few short years? Uh, good luck convincing anybody of that.

A "few short years" is a fallacious assumption on your part because you simply don't truly know how the alternative universe went ... 

Go on, try and grace everyone else in this thread about your 'absolutes' that you don't even know ...  

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.

OhNoYouDont said: 

If I were aware that this being would eventually be responsible for starting a world war, the decision is quite simple.

Your so called righteousness comes off as nothing more than purely conceited in ignorance ...

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

OhNoYouDont said: 

Again, in my eyes you are perverting the inquiry. This is the question in my understanding:

Would you, knowing the results of Hitler's actions, kill him as a baby in order to prevent such actions from occurring?

Whether this entails time travel to the past (impossible) or the ability to predict the future (implausible) is not relevant. All that matters is whether you could kill a currently innocent baby to stop a future travesty.  

You seem to think that utilitarianism is the answer to everything but how do you square the fact that you're likely violating your own standards of justice by killing an innocent minor ? How does one even have a solid criteria for measuring the benefit in that ethical system ? 

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

May as well stop responding since you have nearly nothing of value to add to this discussion ... 

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





It's a weird question because you're asking if I would personally do the killing, and that's where it gets difficult. Would I be considered a hero for killing this baby, or am I going to end up in prison? Would I be willing to go to prison for protecting humanity, without humanity ever realizing it and instead thinking of me as a baby murderer.

If I'm being honest, I would certainly try to kill baby Hitler (not sure if I would go through with it or not) if it was a completely anonymous thing and I could be certain that doing so would save millions of lives.

To the person with the first reply, it's interesting that you look at it from a legal perspective; baby Hitler hasn't committed a crime yet, therefore he should be treated as innocent. I disagree. Was that more of a first impression response; do you really believe that even in the case of Hitler he should be treated the same as everyone else, even if at the expense of millions of peoples' lives. Your point sounded good to me when I first read your reply, but then after a few moments I was like wait, I change my mind.



Around the Network

Nope.

The macro-economic factors that lead to extreme groups taking over germany would have been the same with or without Hitler.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Couldn't I just, you know, kidnap baby Hitler?

Or, rather, could I kill Lenin instead? So many options to change history, being transported back to the 1890s. Of course, our simple presence might already ensure a completely different history.



 

 

 

 

 

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 ? 

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 ...

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 ... 

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 ... 

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 ... 



haxxiy said:
Couldn't I just, you know, kidnap baby Hitler?

Or, rather, could I kill Lenin instead? So many options to change history, being transported back to the 1890s. Of course, our simple presence might already ensure a completely different history.

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.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
haxxiy said:
Couldn't I just, you know, kidnap baby Hitler?

Or, rather, could I kill Lenin instead? So many options to change history, being transported back to the 1890s. Of course, our simple presence might already ensure a completely different history.

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.