Would you kill the Baby Hitler?

Rules of the game:

You enter a time machine that can only take you to one time and place:

Date: 21th April 1889
Place: Home of Klara Hitler, Austria.

The time machine will take you back to your present time by midnight.

You have 24 hours to save 6 million Jews and stop World War II.

Would you kill baby Hitler at 1 day old?

I am not sure if like to change what has happened. I don't think I like the idea of messing with fate.

That's my initial gut reaction - but I may change my mind several times. I'd like to see others' opinions.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Rules of the game:

You enter a time machine that can only take you to one time and place:

Date: 21th April 1889
Place: Home of Klara Hitler, Austria.

The time machine will take you back to your present time by midnight.

You have 24 hours to save 6 million Jews and stop World War II.

Would you kill baby Hitler at 1 day old?

Well that shows how little you know about history.

As was the final solution only about Hitler leading Germany?

No

On a side note, nobody would need to even kill Hitler if the final solution actually depended on Hitler leading Germany.

You would just need to cut the babies tongue out.

Baby Hitler lives and you have denied him the ability of his Charisma in speeches, which leads to his rise in power.

I am one who believes small changes in the past can alter even unconnected. If WW2 hadn't happened exactly as it did I might never have been born. So selfishly I wouldn't kill him.

At the same time, killing Hitler may not even have prevented a second world war or horrors against the Jews. He wasn't the only one who desired what he brought about.

I wouldn't change anything in the past tbh.

I would have brought him back to modern-day Texas and taught him to refer to people as "y'all."

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Rules of the game:

You enter a time machine that can only take you to one time and place:

Date: 21th April 1889
Place: Home of Klara Hitler, Austria.

The time machine will take you back to your present time by midnight.

You have 24 hours to save 6 million Jews and stop World War II.

Would you kill baby Hitler at 1 day old?

Who knows if it might have enabled someone even worse to take over.

For the sake of the game (it's a game Didge, not a history lesson), you will "definitely" stop the holocaust and WWII, in all shapes and forms. No butterfly effect, Les.

Let's see if any of you change your mind, knowing this.

So current consensus so far:

Eddie: Keep baby alive and kill 6 million Jews, etc

Thorin: Cut baby's tounge to save everybody (I will except baby mutilation, if it's effective)

Eilzel: Keep baby alive and kill 6 million Jews, etc

Ben: Answer not accepted. Only space for 1 in Time Machine. If you stay back and send Hitler to the current time, he ends up killing 12 million Jews and starts World War III.

Horatio: Given I've told you it would definitely stop it, what would you do?

That in mind, I'd like to think I would kill baby Hitler, as the world would benefit greatly, and I'd be saving far more babies in the long run. However, killing a baby is probably not an easy thing to do, psychologically, for those of us who are not psychopaths. So given the opportunity I would probably fail to carry out the action. But based purely on intentions, and no BF effect, I would.

I would circumcise him. In later life it woyld give him a different perspective on Jews.

Well Hitler was popular based off his oratory skills. So not sure how he would be able to achieve that without his tongue Zack

Oh and on another side note Zack (sorry for the divergence on this), you should have chosen the year 1913 and Central Vienna.

At that time Tito, Stalin, Trotsky and Hitler were all living there.

What would have happened if they had all been taken out?

Food for thought.

Angry Andy wrote:I would circumcise him. In later life it woyld give him a different perspective on Jews.

That's within the rules of the game. Answer accepted.

Interesting answer. Of course there was no snap-chat dick pics back then, so he'd probably keep that secret.

Thorin wrote:Well Hitler was popular based off his oratory skills. So not sure how he would be able to achieve that without his tongue Zack

And that's why I accepted your answer.

Thorin wrote:Oh and on another side note Zack (sorry for the divergence on this), you should have chosen the year 1913 and Central Vienna.

At that time Tito, Stalin, Trotsky and Hitler were all living there.

What would have happened if they had all been taken out?

Food for thought.

Okay, I'll fess up.

While what you've said above is correct, I actually wanted to see who would be prepared to kill (or in your case, disfigure and disable) a 1 day old baby, knowing that baby will definitely grow up to be evil and kill millions of people.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:Oh and on another side note Zack (sorry for the divergence on this), you should have chosen the year 1913 and Central Vienna.

At that time Tito, Stalin, Trotsky and Hitler were all living there.

What would have happened if they had all been taken out?

Food for thought.

Okay, I'll fess up.

While what you've said above is correct, I actually wanted to see who would be prepared to kill (or in your case, disfigure and disable) a 1 day old baby, knowing that baby will definitely grow up to be evil and kill millions of people.

Fair enough Zack, be interesting to see what others think on your question.

I'm particularly interested in the views of atheists and agnostics.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm particularly interested in the views of atheists and agnostics.

Is this really on their views or on ethical reasons?

So you have a beef about how atheists can easily reason against you?

That would explain an interest, to find an avenue to win off, when you would still actually lose

It's a very interesting question from several angles isn't it?

I thought it might have been a trick question to explore the issue of whether one person is always to blame, or whether a set of circumstances leads to evil - like the issue of Islamic terrorism.

Still, I'll have a go. Hitler didn't do all that on his own, and one wonders whether he would have been in power at all given a different set of decisions by different people.

If the Kaiser had not declared war, would that have made a difference? What about the people who drew up the Treaty of Versailles, and the ones who agreed to sign it? What if Hitler had not been sent to check out the German Workers' Party? What about those who caused the Wall Street crash? I could go on, but you get the picture.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a very interesting question from several angles isn't it?

I thought it might have been a trick question to explore the issue of whether one person is always to blame, or whether a set of circumstances leads to evil - like the issue of Islamic terrorism.

Still, I'll have a go. Hitler didn't do all that on his own, and one wonders whether he would have been in power at all given a different set of decisions by different people.

If the Kaiser had not declared war, would that have made a difference? What about the people who drew up the Treaty of Versailles, and the ones who agreed to sign it? What if Hitler had not been sent to check out the German Workers' Party? What about those who caused the Wall Street crash? I could go on, but you get the picture.

Zacks question is a straight situation where you either kill Hitler or stop him somehow as a baby, as the Holocaust will happen. Is the bases for what is being asked.

Though like you, I am interested at "what if's". I think no matter, at some point Europe would have gone to war. There had already been two Balkan wars in the run up to WW1 and it had been building up for ages. Though there is so many factors here. I mean would the Russian revolution have happened if not for the war? That if it did and with no war the provincial Government remained in power? Would the communists have ever gained power? If they had not gained power, then you have one major factor Hitler used to gain power. The fear of communism. So many things are connected and is very interesting Rags.

Its like I said earlier, its quite strange that in 1913, that Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky and Tito, were all living in central Vienna

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a very interesting question from several angles isn't it?

I thought it might have been a trick question to explore the issue of whether one person is always to blame, or whether a set of circumstances leads to evil - like the issue of Islamic terrorism.

Still, I'll have a go. Hitler didn't do all that on his own, and one wonders whether he would have been in power at all given a different set of decisions by different people.

If the Kaiser had not declared war, would that have made a difference? What about the people who drew up the Treaty of Versailles, and the ones who agreed to sign it? What if Hitler had not been sent to check out the German Workers' Party? What about those who caused the Wall Street crash? I could go on, but you get the picture.

Zacks question is a straight situation where you either kill Hitler or stop him somehow as a baby, as the Holocaust will happen. Is the bases for what is being asked.

Though like you, I am interested at "what if's". I think no matter, at some point Europe would have gone to war. There had already been two Balkan wars in the run up to WW1 and it had been building up for ages. Though there is so many factors here. I mean would the Russian revolution have happened if not for the war? That if it did and with no war the provincial Government remained in power? Would the communists have ever gained power? If they had not gained power, then you have one major factor Hitler used to gain power. The fear of communism. So many things are connected and is very interesting Rags.

Its like I said earlier, its quite strange that in 1913, that Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky and Tito, were all living in central Vienna

If it's a straightforward question, my answer is no, but I do prefer the route we're now going down Didge. I agree about the Communists - they were very instrumental in his determination and his rise to power. What about the person or people who decided to have proportional representation in the Weimar Republic? Do they have a lot to answer for? What about Papen and Hindenberg? If the bullet had missed Franz Ferdinand, would WW1 have happened in the way it did? What if Goebbels had not been born? Would anyone else have been so effective re the propaganda?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Zacks question is a straight situation where you either kill Hitler or stop him somehow as a baby, as the Holocaust will happen. Is the bases for what is being asked.

Though like you, I am interested at "what if's". I think no matter, at some point Europe would have gone to war. There had already been two Balkan wars in the run up to WW1 and it had been building up for ages. Though there is so many factors here. I mean would the Russian revolution have happened if not for the war? That if it did and with no war the provincial Government remained in power? Would the communists have ever gained power? If they had not gained power, then you have one major factor Hitler used to gain power. The fear of communism. So many things are connected and is very interesting Rags.

Its like I said earlier, its quite strange that in 1913, that Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky and Tito, were all living in central Vienna

If it's a straightforward question, my answer is no, but I do prefer the route we're now going down Didge. I agree about the Communists - they were very instrumental in his determination and his rise to power. What about the person or people who decided to have proportional representation in the Weimar Republic? Do they have a lot to answer for? What about Papen and Hindenberg? If the bullet had missed Franz Ferdinand, would WW1 have happened in the way it did? What if Goebbels had not been born? Would anyone else have been so effective re the propaganda?

Again Austria-Hungary used the assassination as an excuse to go to war with Serbia. The irony is that had it been anyone else assassinated in the Royal family, Franz was the one member opposed to any future conflicts and even though he was disliked by many in the echelons of Austro-Hungarian society, he had influence over decisions. Its very likely he would have opposed going to war with Serbia. He was a vile racist mind. So the Austro-Hungarians were simple looking for an excuse, because they were afraid of the rise of Slavic nationalism through the Serbians. There had been near misses before of Europe being plunged into war, so to me it was inevitable it was going to happen. At some point they would have looked for an excuse to go to war with Serbia. Its one of those situations, that at some point a conflict would have occurred, but would it have embroiled all of Europe? I think again yes.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If it's a straightforward question, my answer is no, but I do prefer the route we're now going down Didge. I agree about the Communists - they were very instrumental in his determination and his rise to power. What about the person or people who decided to have proportional representation in the Weimar Republic? Do they have a lot to answer for? What about Papen and Hindenberg? If the bullet had missed Franz Ferdinand, would WW1 have happened in the way it did? What if Goebbels had not been born? Would anyone else have been so effective re the propaganda?

Again Austria-Hungary used the assassination as an excuse to go to war with Serbia. The irony is that had it been anyone else assassinated in the Royal family, Franz was the one member opposed to any future conflicts and even though he was disliked by many in the echelons of Austro-Hungarian society, he had influence over decisions. Its very likely he would have opposed going to war with Serbia. He was a vile racist mind. So the Austro-Hungarians were simple looking for an excuse, because they were afraid of the rise of Slavic nationalism through the Serbians. There had been near misses before of Europe being plunged into war, so to me it was inevitable it was going to happen. At some point they would have looked for an excuse to go to war with Serbia. Its one of those situations, that at some point a conflict would have occurred, but would it have embroiled all of Europe? I think again yes.

Your question is an important one - would it have embroiled the rest of Europe had the war started for a different reason? Possibly, but if we accept that the war would have happened anyway, we then come to the events post war. Germany was largely blamed for it, and perhaps that was unfair. They were heavily punished, and that was really the basis for Hitler's state of mind was it not? Of course he didn't like Jews or Communists anyway, but I think the Treaty of Versailles was the real issue for him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again Austria-Hungary used the assassination as an excuse to go to war with Serbia. The irony is that had it been anyone else assassinated in the Royal family, Franz was the one member opposed to any future conflicts and even though he was disliked by many in the echelons of Austro-Hungarian society, he had influence over decisions. Its very likely he would have opposed going to war with Serbia. He was a vile racist mind. So the Austro-Hungarians were simple looking for an excuse, because they were afraid of the rise of Slavic nationalism through the Serbians. There had been near misses before of Europe being plunged into war, so to me it was inevitable it was going to happen. At some point they would have looked for an excuse to go to war with Serbia. Its one of those situations, that at some point a conflict would have occurred, but would it have embroiled all of Europe? I think again yes.

Your question is an important one - would it have embroiled the rest of Europe had the war started for a different reason? Possibly, but if we accept that the war would have happened anyway, we then come to the events post war. Germany was largely blamed for it, and perhaps that was unfair. They were heavily punished, and that was really the basis for Hitler's state of mind was it not? Of course he didn't like Jews or Communists anyway, but I think the Treaty of Versailles was the real issue for him.

I think German was very much to blame, as they gave an open cheque of support to Austro-Hungary on going to war with Serbia, who's Ultimatum, would never have been excepted by anyone. Germany was looking for a confrontation with Russia as well. They knew that an open cheque would leave Russia with little choice but to back Serbia and if then Russia is threatened by Germany. Then France was obligated to come to her side. So I think both Germany and Austro-Hungary were to blame for the cause of the war. To me there is no doubt of that. The problem was the allies never invaded Germany proper in WW1. If that had of totally defeated Germany in WW1. Its doubtful this would have given rise to the view that German people felt they were betrayed. As many believed they had not lost the war, but had been betrayed by those who surrendered.

What is relevant is whether the Treaty of Versailles was fair or not. That to me should be the main issue on how and why it led to resentment in Germany. Having said that, if they have been totally defeated, I doubt that would have given rise to resentment.

Ironically I am reading Max Hastings - "Catastrophe Europe Goes to War 1914"

Its a brilliant book, and if you have not read Rags, I recommend this book

What if the allies had been more prepared to stop Hitler in his tracks earlier on? They largely ignored the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, and they ignored the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, even though all those events were in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.

Take me back to when Mohammed was born 570ad, infanticide anyone?

Raggamuffin wrote:What if the allies had been more prepared to stop Hitler in his tracks earlier on? They largely ignored the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, and they ignored the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, even though all those events were in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.

Now there is a very interesting point on the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Hitler would not have been able to win and he knew this and knew it was a gamble, one that paid off. So I agree, that would have been very interesting to see if the French had of acted, but we must remember the First World War and its horrors were in living memory. Which was  a big deterrent for any military action by both France and Britain and I think Hitler knew this

Fuzzy Zack wrote:For the sake of the game (it's a game Didge, not a history lesson), you will "definitely" stop the holocaust and WWII, in all shapes and forms. No butterfly effect, Les.

Let's see if any of you change your mind, knowing this.

So current consensus so far:

Eddie: Keep baby alive and kill 6 million Jews, etc

Thorin: Cut baby's tounge to save everybody (I will except baby mutilation, if it's effective)

Eilzel: Keep baby alive and kill 6 million Jews, etc

Ben: Answer not accepted. Only space for 1 in Time Machine. If you stay back and send Hitler to the current time, he ends up killing 12 million Jews and starts World War III.

Horatio: Given I've told you it would definitely stop it, what would you do?

No, I'd kill his mother.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What if the allies had been more prepared to stop Hitler in his tracks earlier on? They largely ignored the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, and they ignored the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, even though all those events were in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.

Now there is a very interesting point on the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Hitler would not have been able to win and he knew this and knew it was a gamble, one that paid off. So I agree, that would have been very interesting to see if the French had of acted, but we must remember the First World War and its horrors were in living memory. Which was  a big deterrent for any military action by both France and Britain and I think Hitler knew this

Yes - he took a lot of gambles, and of course he took a couple too many in the end. Perhaps he might not have been so confident if his earlier actions had not been ignored.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:Oh and on another side note Zack (sorry for the divergence on this), you should have chosen the year 1913 and Central Vienna.

At that time Tito, Stalin, Trotsky and Hitler were all living there.

What would have happened if they had all been taken out?

Food for thought.

Okay, I'll fess up.

While what you've said above is correct, I actually wanted to see who would be prepared to kill (or in your case, disfigure and disable) a 1 day old baby, knowing that baby will definitely grow up to be evil and kill millions of people.

It's still too simple a question Zack. I would say that most people would not kill a little baby, even if they were prepared to kill an adult who they knew would do something awful. That's because it's assumed that babies are born innocent and are helpless, whereas adults are responsible for their own actions. However, the baby and the adult are the same person, they're just at different stages.

It all makes makes me think of "The Dead Zone". In that case, Johnny could see into the future rather than having a time machine which went backwards. He asked his doctor if he would have killed Hitler if he could go back to a time before Hitler got into power. The doctor said his job was to save lives, and that he would have killed him.

Ironically, it was a baby who inadvertently ended up saving mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJJYVORSP_w

Raggamuffin wrote:It all makes makes me think of "The Dead Zone". In that case, Johnny could see into the future rather than having a time machine which went backwards. He asked his doctor if he would have killed Hitler if he could go back to a time before Hitler got into power. The doctor said his job was to save lives, and that he would have killed him.

Ironically, it was a baby who inadvertently ended up saving mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJJYVORSP_w

Love that movie....and the book

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It all makes makes me think of "The Dead Zone". In that case, Johnny could see into the future rather than having a time machine which went backwards. He asked his doctor if he would have killed Hitler if he could go back to a time before Hitler got into power. The doctor said his job was to save lives, and that he would have killed him.

Ironically, it was a baby who inadvertently ended up saving mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJJYVORSP_w

Love that movie....and the book

Me too. On the face of it, it's just a film about a man who can see the future, but there's so much more to it than that. If Stillson had been killed, I wonder what the news headline would have been - would Johnny have been labelled as a terrorist? If Stillson had survived and not picked the baby up, would he have been even more popular? Perhaps the assassination attempt would have made him so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Love that movie....and the book

Me too. On the face of it, it's just a film about a man who can see the future, but there's so much more to it than that. If Stillson had been killed, I wonder what the news headline would have been - would Johnny have been labelled as a terrorist? If Stillson had survived and not picked the baby up, would he have been even more popular? Perhaps the assassination attempt would have made him so.

Perhaps a classic case of karma

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Me too. On the face of it, it's just a film about a man who can see the future, but there's so much more to it than that. If Stillson had been killed, I wonder what the news headline would have been - would Johnny have been labelled as a terrorist? If Stillson had survived and not picked the baby up, would he have been even more popular? Perhaps the assassination attempt would have made him so.

Perhaps a classic case of karma

I guess the thing is that nobody knew that Stillson was barking mad - well except Johnny and possibly the father of the boy who Johnny saved. Stillson had done nothing to make people think he was off his head. If he had not picked the baby up, people would say he was a hero, and that Johnny was evil and had deserved to die.

What if someone killed a baby, and then claimed that they had foreseen that the baby would grow up and try to destroy the world? Nobody would believe them. They would not be hailed as the saviour of mankind, they would be reviled and locked up. Therefore, if someone had killed Hitler as a baby, nobody would have thanked them - they would just be seen as a baby killer.

Eilzel wrote:
I am one who believes small changes in the past can alter even unconnected. If WW2 hadn't happened exactly as it did I might never have been born. So selfishly I wouldn't kill him.

At the same time, killing Hitler may not even have prevented a second world war or horrors against the Jews. He wasn't the only one who desired what he brought about.

I wouldn't change anything in the past tbh.

I agree with Eilzel's viewpoint, as to changing world events...

However, if I had the opportunity to change one event, I could look to a couple of missteps that I made back in the 1980s -- where "turning left instead of right" would have set me up better for where I am in the present..

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Perhaps a classic case of karma

I guess the thing is that nobody knew that Stillson was barking mad - well except Johnny and possibly the father of the boy who Johnny saved. Stillson had done nothing to make people think he was off his head. If he had not picked the baby up, people would say he was a hero, and that Johnny was evil and had deserved to die.

What if someone killed a baby, and then claimed that they had foreseen that the baby would grow up and try to destroy the world? Nobody would believe them. They would not be hailed as the saviour of mankind, they would be reviled and locked up. Therefore, if someone had killed Hitler as a baby, nobody would have thanked them - they would just be seen as a baby killer.

But would that matter that they didn't get recognition for saving millions of lives by killing the evil? The main thing is it's been stopped. The main thing would be that, as the visionary, you'd know the truth and that would be all that mattered.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I guess the thing is that nobody knew that Stillson was barking mad - well except Johnny and possibly the father of the boy who Johnny saved. Stillson had done nothing to make people think he was off his head. If he had not picked the baby up, people would say he was a hero, and that Johnny was evil and had deserved to die.

What if someone killed a baby, and then claimed that they had foreseen that the baby would grow up and try to destroy the world? Nobody would believe them. They would not be hailed as the saviour of mankind, they would be reviled and locked up. Therefore, if someone had killed Hitler as a baby, nobody would have thanked them - they would just be seen as a baby killer.

But would that matter that they didn't get recognition for saving millions of lives by killing the evil?  The main thing is it's been stopped.   The main thing would be that, as the visionary, you'd know the truth and that would be all that mattered.  

The point is that nobody would know that they had saved millions of lives, and nobody would know that a potential evil had been stopped. Everyone would go on in ignorance and nothing would have been learnt - not that anything is really learnt anyway IMO.

I guess if Hitler had not lived to grow up, you could say that Israel might be a very different place today.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But would that matter that they didn't get recognition for saving millions of lives by killing the evil?  The main thing is it's been stopped.   The main thing would be that, as the visionary, you'd know the truth and that would be all that mattered.  

The point is that nobody would know that they had saved millions of lives, and nobody would know that a potential evil had been stopped. Everyone would go on in ignorance and nothing would have been learnt - not that anything is really learnt anyway IMO.

I guess if Hitler had not lived to grow up, you could say that Israel might be a very different place today.

I doubt that would have impacted Rags, as antisemitism had been rife in Europe for centuries. If anything more Jews may have settled in the Mandate.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
I am one who believes small changes in the past can alter even unconnected. If WW2 hadn't happened exactly as it did I might never have been born. So selfishly I wouldn't kill him.

At the same time, killing Hitler may not even have prevented a second world war or horrors against the Jews. He wasn't the only one who desired what he brought about.

I wouldn't change anything in the past tbh.

I agree with Eilzel's viewpoint, as to changing world events...

However, if I had the opportunity to change one event, I could look to a couple of missteps that I made back in the 1980s --  where "turning left instead of right" would have set me up better for where I am in the present..

Interesting Wolf, so what were the choices?

Hope you dont regret the choice you made.

Anyway, I still say that it's not just Hitler who did all that. If he had not existed, what about the others? Geobbels was influential and he didn't like Jews either.

The truth is that everyone let Hitler in, and the Reichstag let him take their power away by voting in favour of the Enabling Act.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I still say that it's not just Hitler who did all that. If he had not existed, what about the others? Geobbels was influential and he didn't like Jews either.

The truth is that everyone let Hitler in, and the Reichstag let him take their power away by voting in favour of the Enabling Act.

Yes, that was my thought too. He was only one element in a whole load of shit. I personally think what weasel Heinrich Himmler was a bigger, cruel and more vicious twat than Hitler. Imagine if he'd been solely in charge? Perhaps he might have been if Hitler got splatted as a sprog.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But would that matter that they didn't get recognition for saving millions of lives by killing the evil?  The main thing is it's been stopped.   The main thing would be that, as the visionary, you'd know the truth and that would be all that mattered.  

The point is that nobody would know that they had saved millions of lives, and nobody would know that a potential evil had been stopped. Everyone would go on in ignorance and nothing would have been learnt - not that anything is really learnt anyway IMO.

I guess if Hitler had not lived to grow up, you could say that Israel might be a very different place today.

So, how do we know if this situation hasn't already occurred? It might, several times.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


The point is that nobody would know that they had saved millions of lives, and nobody would know that a potential evil had been stopped. Everyone would go on in ignorance and nothing would have been learnt - not that anything is really learnt anyway IMO.

I guess if Hitler had not lived to grow up, you could say that Israel might be a very different place today.

So, how do we know if this situation hasn't already occurred?  It might, several times.

The situation where someone foresaw or knew that a baby would grow up to be evil? I doubt it. However, there might be babies, small children, or even adults killed who might have gone on to become that way and were killed by coincidence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So, how do we know if this situation hasn't already occurred?  It might, several times.

The situation where someone foresaw or knew that a baby would grow up to be evil? I doubt it. However, there might be babies, small children, or even adults killed who might have gone on to become that way and were killed by coincidence.

That's what I meant. Accidents etc.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The situation where someone foresaw or knew that a baby would grow up to be evil? I doubt it. However, there might be babies, small children, or even adults killed who might have gone on to become that way and were killed by coincidence.

That's what I meant.   Accidents etc.

It might have - if you believe that someone is born to be evil. However, it's not something you want to say on Twitter about babies which are killed.

Eilzel wrote:I am one who believes small changes in the past can alter even unconnected. If WW2 hadn't happened exactly as it did I might never have been born. So selfishly I wouldn't kill him.

At the same time, killing Hitler may not even have prevented a second world war or horrors against the Jews. He wasn't the only one who desired what he brought about.

I wouldn't change anything in the past tbh.

That's pretty much what I've said and how I feel. I am not comfortable with changing the past and altering fate. What has to be, will have to be.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm particularly interested in the views of atheists and agnostics.

Is this really on their views or on ethical reasons?

So you have a beef about how atheists can easily reason against you?

That would explain an interest, to find an avenue to win off, when you would still actually lose

Ah dude, why are you being do defensive? What beef?

You've really exposed your own insecurity there, my brother. It was a genuine interest, which I will explain in my next post.

You can then, by all means and blessings, start your little competition and see if you can win and become a legend in your own mind. I genuinely don't give a fuck.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Is this really on their views or on ethical reasons?

So you have a beef about how atheists can easily reason against you?

That would explain an interest, to find an avenue to win off, when you would still actually lose

Ah dude, why are you being do defensive? What beef?

You've really exposed your own insecurity there, my brother. It was a genuine interest, which I will explain in my next post.

You can then, by all means and blessings, start your little competition and see if you can win and become a legend in your own mind. I genuinely don't give a fuck.

Have I?

All you did was turn this on me, when other questioned the same

Why did Rags question the same thing?

So no insecurity, only your paranoia being exposed bro

You clearly do care by the profanities

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Okay, I'll fess up.

While what you've said above is correct, I actually wanted to see who would be prepared to kill (or in your case, disfigure and disable) a 1 day old baby, knowing that baby will definitely grow up to be evil and kill millions of people.

Fair enough Zack, be interesting to see what others think on your question.

I also agreed with your interest Zack

So again, you are a tad paranoid bruv

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Okay, I'll fess up.

While what you've said above is correct, I actually wanted to see who would be prepared to kill (or in your case, disfigure and disable) a 1 day old baby, knowing that baby will definitely grow up to be evil and kill millions of people.

It's still too simple a question Zack. I would say that most people would not kill a little baby, even if they were prepared to kill an adult who they knew would do something awful. That's because it's assumed that babies are born innocent and are helpless, whereas adults are responsible for their own actions. However, the baby and the adult are the same person, they're just at different stages.

I kept it simple for good reason.

I agree, that the conditions Germany was forced to endure by the victors of WWI, would have caused some sort of war.

But apparently there were not many who had the charisma of Hitler, to be able to persuade others to join him in his atrocities. His mentor chose him specifically becuase he had the personality required.

But back to why I kept it simple. It's not really a trick, more a philosophical debate.

Why does God kill babies?

God (if it exists), has perfect control of time and space and knowledge of all things.

If we were living in that time and space, surely we would be saying (as compassionate human beings), "How can God take away baby Adolf? He had so much to live for and could have achieved many great things", etc.

But what if we had perfect knowledge and control? Could there be a wisdom beyond our knowledge in killing a baby?