Would you kill the Baby Hitler?

First topic message reminder :

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?

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

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

Yeah, sure. Lol!

You're one strange dude.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


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

Yeah, sure. Lol!

You're one strange dude.

I am your Bruv and that is why you love me and misdirect when  you look a wally,

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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?

how does 'God' kill babies?

How do we know there is a 'God' as depicted in the Bible and other so called Holy books? What if God isn't a person? What if we're all born on this planet to learn certain lessons with no interference from the Almighty? What if our life span is preordained before we're born? What if there's nothing?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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?

That's all very interesting, and it kind of asks a similar question to the one H and I were discussing.

Are you suggesting that babies who die at the hands of other people are actually destined to be bad people, and that the people who kill them are mere instruments of God?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

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?

That's all very interesting, and it kind of asks a similar question to the one H and I were discussing.

Are you suggesting that babies who die at the hands of other people are actually destined to be bad people, and that the people who kill them are mere instruments of God?

The question to then ask, is why then is still many able to grow up and murder countless people.

So the premise for Zack's claim falls apart at this first hurdle.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's all very interesting, and it kind of asks a similar question to the one H and I were discussing.

Are you suggesting that babies who die at the hands of other people are actually destined to be bad people, and that the people who kill them are mere instruments of God?

The question to then ask, is why then is still many able to grow up and murder countless people.

So the premise for Zack's claim falls apart at this first hurdle.

Yes, although I'm trying to clarify what Zack meant first. I don't want to assume anything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The question to then ask, is why then is still many able to grow up and murder countless people.

So the premise for Zack's claim falls apart at this first hurdle.

Yes, although I'm trying to clarify what Zack meant first. I don't want to assume anything.

Fair enough Rags, but this seems to be a poor claim to back the idea that there is reason to why millions of children die each year. As if to defend a God (based on the view of all knowing) allowing this to happen or commanding it. Based on the view, the children will grow up evil. Even though countless people end up growing to adulthood and become or are evil.

Which would prove that this deity is either incompetent in taking out all those who are evil as babies or even worse knowingly allows many who are evil to grow up and enact being evil.

Its really quite a poor apologist argument for a deity

Bad people do bad things. It's how we are, and how we're genetically disposed to a primal degree. Most of us are either spiritually enough evolved to know this is wrong, and not even consider it an option at any level, or social conditioning prevents this. Take away the safety of society and law and mayhem does ensue as has been proved over and over again on this planet.

HoratioTarr wrote:Bad people do bad things.   It's how we are, and how we're genetically disposed to a primal degree.   Most of us are either spiritually enough evolved to know this is wrong, and not even consider it an option at any level, or social conditioning prevents this.   Take away the safety of society and law and mayhem does ensue as has been proved over and over again on this planet.

Are you sure?

What about nomadic hunter groups, especially in the past who had no laws. I don;t think it was mayhem then or now wit these indigenous isolated groups

Again, I'm not sure why the Didge is taking this as some sort of competition. Someone would think he's insecure. Like the man with a tiny penis.

I'm not nor could I say anything abour the mind of anyone else, especially God.

I'm asking you to consider the possibility that God (if one exists) has perfect knowledge and control of time, it could be killing babies for a reason. One of those reasons could be the evil baby scenario.

As for why do some evil people exist if they were not killed as babies?

Firstly, I never said God only kills evi babies.

Secondly, people only have the chance to do good, if there's evil. Otherwise being good has no value. For good people to prove themselves, evil must exist.

You may think you are the the kind of person who will save a person from being mugged, but you have to idea what fear will do to you until it happens. That's just one example.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yeah, sure. Lol!

You're one strange dude.

I am your Bruv and that is why you love me and misdirect when  you look a wally,

I think I've broken Didge.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Again, I'm not sure why the Didge is taking this as some sort of competition. Someone would think he's insecure. Like the man with a tiny penis.

I'm not nor could I say anything abour the mind of anyone else, especially God.

I'm asking you to consider the possibility that God (if one exists) has perfect knowledge and control of time, it could be killing babies for a reason. One of those reasons could be the evil baby scenario.

As for why do some evil people exist if they were not killed as babies?

Firstly, I never said God only kills evi babies.

Secondly, people only have the chance to do good, if there's evil. Otherwise being good has no value. For good people to prove themselves, evil must exist.

You may think you are the the kind of person who will save a person from being mugged, but you have to idea what fear will do to you until it happens. That's just one example.

1) And Zack's argument falls flat when he again misdirects and makes immature cheap attacks onto me

2) You were trying to say you know the mind of your God,l as you asked why does God kill babies. That basically backs the view you are making.

3) So if it is the evil baby scenario, clearly this God is crap and incompetence or clearly cannot see everything, because he misses to take out a mass of evil people. Or as I stated, its a ruse to take out some, when he is all knowing and allows countless evil people to grow up and commit unspeakable acts

4) You need to define what is good and then define what is evil. I mean is non-belief evil or is it good? You see the goalposts on good and evil will vary based on beliefs.

5) Some people instinctively help those under attack, some are led by fear, as its not something you think about. It either happens in the moment or people walk away.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am your Bruv and that is why you love me and misdirect when  you look a wally,

I think I've broken Didge.  

See a fine example of looking down on non-Muslims as inferior, that he wants to break people mentally.

This is the issue with a religion that teaches a view of religious superiority

As seen its again a poor misdirection, because Zack simple has not the capacity to challenge me on my views, so instead he again applies a cheap shot

Happy that he continues to do so, as it paints him in a poor light

I would also add based on the premise of Zack on the evil baby scenario. That if this God is all knowing and only kills evil babies. Then all those people in history we define as evil, would not be seen as evil to this God and that in fact they would be an instrument of this Gods work. That would mean God planned to exterminate 11 million people through the holocaust, not once considering this evil or wrong. Or viewing Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ect and even more weird, that Ratko Mladić would not be considered evil by this deity, even though he murdered many Muslims. You would then rightly ask then, if in fact this God is then evil itself would you not? Clearly this would not be something to love or worship and if you did worship, it would be done out of fear and not love. Unless of course you were also evil too. As how can anyone love anything that we rightly see as wrong and evil?

The only other explanation would mean this deity is very incompetent or not all knowing at all. As clearly many evil people live to carry out unspeakable acts and Zack rightly views Hitler as evil for what he done. So the evil baby scenario is clearly something people dream up, as seen by Zack here thinking he can explain the actions he subscribes to his deity. Thinking he can try and understand his own God, by coming up with this theory. So is then not Zack insulting his own deity, thinking he can even attempt to understand him? That again this deity would be insulted with his view to have supreme all knowing intelligence and then be incompetent at talking out all evil babies. So how can something supremely intelligent be so utterly incompetent? It would never be incompetent, it would thus not be all knowing at all and would mean the God is second guessing, leaving the door open to mistakes.

Or else it is all knowing and can only then be evil, as countless evil continues to happen by countless evil people.

Based off the evil baby scenario.

Thorin wrote:I would also add based on the premise of Zack on the evil baby scenario. That if this God is all knowing and only kills evil babies. Then all those people in history we define as evil, would not be seen as evil to this God and that in fact they would be an instrument of this Gods work. That would mean God planned to exterminate 11 million people through the holocaust, not once considering this evil or wrong. Or viewing Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ect and even more weird, that Ratko Mladić would not be considered evil by this deity, even though he murdered many Muslims. You would then rightly ask then, if in fact this God is then evil itself would you not? Clearly this would not be something to love or worship and if you did worship, it would be done out of fear and not love. Unless of course you were also evil too. As how can anyone love anything that we rightly see as wrong and evil?

The only other explanation would mean this deity is very incompetent or not all knowing at all. As clearly many evil people live to carry out unspeakable acts and Zack rightly views Hitler as evil for what he done. So the evil baby scenario is clearly something people dream up, as seen by Zack here thinking he can explain the actions he subscribes to his deity. Thinking he can try and understand his own God, by coming up with this theory. So is then not Zack insulting his own deity, thinking he can even attempt to understand him? That again this deity would be insulted with his view to have supreme all knowing intelligence and then be incompetent at talking out all evil babies. So how can something supremely intelligent be so utterly incompetent? It would never be incompetent, it would thus not be all knowing at all and would mean the God is second guessing, leaving the door open to mistakes.

Or else it is all knowing and can only then be evil, as countless evil continues to happen by countless evil people.

Based off the evil baby scenario.

What is even more in bad taste about this scenario. Is it then claim that billions of babies who have died in history have to have then all been evil. That it was because they were evil that they died as babies. How sick and twisted is that to make on all those who have lost loved ones like I have with my baby sister Louise and Niece Rebecca. That they were killed by a God, because they would then have to be evil, based off the evil baby scenario?

That they basically deserved to die. Is that what Zack is trying to tell me?

As how can even people attempt to reason for the deaths of innocent babies by claiming they were killed as they might be evil. Ignoring the fact many evil people have killed in history and were not killed as babies. Not that I want to deter any debate, as I welcome open discussions and this is interesting, but its a very thoughtless and insensitive topic to come up with.

Not sure whoa Didge is replying to when talking about me, but whoever chooses to reply may want to tell him the difference between a debate and discussion.

For the rest, here's another twist.

What about the Golden Rule of morality? Treating others babies like you'd want others to treat yours. You baby killers will be making Adolf's mother suffer for something a mother couldn't believe about her own child.

What about "your intent" and consequences for killing a baby? You would be directly responsible for killing a baby. Someone else (Adolf) would be responsible for killing 6 million Jews.

So Zack again evades my points, knowing his scenario made his God evil and the latest one makes zero sense

But in this hypothetical Zack, we would know the direct resukts of our otherwise terrible actions. None of us under ordinary circumstances would even consider killing a child. However, this is not an ordinary situation.

Given the chance to kill Hitler, save millions of lives and suffer no negative bufferfly effect, I think there is a fair argument to say that not carrying out the action might be a worse crime. You had the chance to save millions, with no consequence to anyone but the would-be dictator and his family-and you didn't do it. You would be directly condemning millions to (in your scenario) avoidable death surely?

And even saying that, I still don't know if I could do it.

HoratioTarr wrote:
Bad people do bad things.   It's how we are, and how we're genetically disposed to a primal degree.   Most of us are either spiritually enough evolved to know this is wrong, and not even consider it an option at any level, or social conditioning prevents this.   Take away the safety of society and law and mayhem does ensue as has been proved over and over again on this planet.

"genetically disposed.."
"spiritually enough evolved..

Total and utter unsubstantiated bullshit..

From Horatio, still one of the stupidest and most clueless dolts on NewsFix.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


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.

I'm thinking along the line of certain economic/business decisions...

Choosing one job choice over another;
Setting up a share portfolio a decade earlier than what I did;
Moving ahead with some beekeeping decisions instead of 'marking time'/standing still..

Wrong (or even 'second best') decisions can have a "domino effect", with losses compounding over time.

"Regrets ? I've had a few." as Frank Sinatra sang..

But, "there is no going back.." -- you can't revisit the past; so
"you play the hand that you're dealt.." -- even when you deal yourself a bad hand...

Thorin wrote:So Zack again evades my points, knowing his scenario made his God evil and the latest one makes zero sense

Please fuck off Bigot

Did Zack's post contain anything about his Muslim heritage NO so Shit the fuck up or your int he basement He even Stated he is sick of talking to you as many are.
I will not stand by and watch some pea brained Missionary pollute this forum with their hate filled bigotry

Eilzel wrote:But in this hypothetical Zack, we would know the direct resukts of our otherwise terrible actions. None of us under ordinary circumstances would even consider killing a child. However, this is not an ordinary situation.

Given the chance to kill Hitler, save millions of lives and suffer no negative bufferfly effect, I think there is a fair argument to say that not carrying out the action might be a worse crime. You had the chance to save millions, with no consequence to anyone but the would-be dictator and his family-and you didn't do it. You would be directly condemning millions to (in your scenario) avoidable death surely?

And even saying that, I still don't know if I could do it.

Even without  Hitler in the picture, there were still several other events under way during the 1930s ==

Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy were still seriously depressed;
The Nazi party was still in existence -- even without Hitler's leadership;
Mussolini and his Fascists were still in power in Italy;
Japan was still expanding through Asia;
Russia and China were in the middle of their Communist revolutions;
The USA was still in an isolationist mood..

The world was still heading for deep trouble --  even without the Third Reich.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Again, I'm not sure why the Didge is taking this as some sort of competition. Someone would think he's insecure. Like the man with a tiny penis.

I'm not nor could I say anything abour the mind of anyone else, especially God.

I'm asking you to consider the possibility that God (if one exists) has perfect knowledge and control of time, it could be killing babies for a reason. One of those reasons could be the evil baby scenario.

As for why do some evil people exist if they were not killed as babies?

Firstly, I never said God only kills evi babies.

Secondly, people only have the chance to do good, if there's evil. Otherwise being good has no value. For good people to prove themselves, evil must exist.

You may think you are the the kind of person who will save a person from being mugged, but you have to idea what fear will do to you until it happens. That's just one example.

Well that is a deep and well thought out position

I would agree to the extent that even if you killed baby Hitler it would not a prevent another demagogue from taking up the discontent of the German people after paying exorbitant reparation for ww1.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:But in this hypothetical Zack, we would know the direct resukts of our otherwise terrible actions. None of us under ordinary circumstances would even consider killing a child. However, this is not an ordinary situation.

Given the chance to kill Hitler, save millions of lives and suffer no negative bufferfly effect, I think there is a fair argument to say that not carrying out the action might be a worse crime. You had the chance to save millions, with no consequence to anyone but the would-be dictator and his family-and you didn't do it. You would be directly condemning millions to (in your scenario) avoidable death surely?

And even saying that, I still don't know if I could do it.

Even without  Hitler in the picture, there were still several other events under way during the 1930s ==

Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy were still seriously depressed;
The Nazi party was still in existence --  even without Hitler's leadership;
Mussolini and his Fascists were still in power in Italy;
Japan was still expanding through Asia;
Russia and China were in the middle of their Communist revolutions;
The USA was still in an isolationist mood..

The world was still heading for deep trouble --  even without the Third Reich.

If you truly follow it back ww1 was the last of the colonial trade wars,and Japans Expanding presence in Asia was directly the result of the European withdrawal from the region to fight the European trade war (ww1) which is possible due the Brutal (most deaths of any war) Boxer revolution funded and largely create by European colonial interests trying to rape Asia of it's wealth.

More death world wide would have been prevented if you killed the British monarchy in the early/pre Victorian era, which happens to be when France was launching a peoples revolution

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:
Bad people do bad things.   It's how we are, and how we're genetically disposed to a primal degree.   Most of us are either spiritually enough evolved to know this is wrong, and not even consider it an option at any level, or social conditioning prevents this.   Take away the safety of society and law and mayhem does ensue as has been proved over and over again on this planet.

"genetically disposed.."
"spiritually enough evolved..

Total and utter unsubstantiated bullshit..

From Horatio, still one of the stupidest and most clueless dolts on NewsFix.

You could just disagree without being insulting. Why can't you grasp that?

You know veya it does get boring how you make everything into bashing the British. Incidentally, you are probably wrong, even post monarchy, France remained as brutal a colonial power as Britain. Britain wasn't even governed by the monarch in the 1800s anyone. Regardless, why try to spin a line against the British here anyway?

Wolfie, I am also of the opinion that just killing Hitler would not have prevented eventual war and further persecution either, as I mentioned in my first post. However, for the sake of Zack's hypothetical scenario we are assuming it would

PS: veya, which one of France's bloody revolutions would that be? Too late for the first and the reign of terror right?

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:So Zack again evades my points, knowing his scenario made his God evil and the latest one makes zero sense

Please fuck off Bigot

Did Zack's post contain anything about his Muslim heritage NO so Shit the fuck up or your int he basement He even Stated he is sick  of talking to you as many are.
I will not stand by and watch some pea brained Missionary pollute this forum with their hate filled bigotry

Where did I attack his Muslim heritage you deranged unhinged loon?

Never did, so we see you invent more lies, because you are bitter and twisted, kind of like the god in the evil baby scenario

You can mouth off like the cretin you are, but I see you ignore Wolf's abuse

So run along you pathetic immature brat, as i easily rubbish his claim with the following

Now grow the fuck up and stop trying to start fights, because I constantly make you look thick


Now you can answer my points if you like



I would also add based on the premise of Zack on the evil baby scenario. That if this God is all knowing and only kills evil babies. Then all those people in history we define as evil, would not be seen as evil to this God and that in fact they would be an instrument of this Gods work. That would mean God planned to exterminate 11 million people through the holocaust, not once considering this evil or wrong. Or viewing Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ect and even more weird, that Ratko Mladić would not be considered evil by this deity, even though he murdered many Muslims. You would then rightly ask then, if in fact this God is then evil itself would you not? Clearly this would not be something to love or worship and if you did worship, it would be done out of fear and not love. Unless of course you were also evil too. As how can anyone love anything that we rightly see as wrong and evil?


The only other explanation would mean this deity is very incompetent or not all knowing at all. As clearly many evil people live to carry out unspeakable acts and Zack rightly views Hitler as evil for what he done. So the evil baby scenario is clearly something people dream up, as seen by Zack here thinking he can explain the actions he subscribes to his deity. Thinking he can try and understand his own God, by coming up with this theory. So is then not Zack insulting his own deity, thinking he can even attempt to understand him? That again this deity would be insulted with his view to have supreme all knowing intelligence and then be incompetent at talking out all evil babies. So how can something supremely intelligent be so utterly incompetent? It would never be incompetent, it would thus not be all knowing at all and would mean the God is second guessing, leaving the door open to mistakes. 


Or else it is all knowing and can only then be evil, as countless evil continues to happen by countless evil people. 


Based off the evil baby scenario.

Eilzel wrote:You know veya it does get boring how you make everything into bashing the British. Incidentally, you are probably wrong, even post monarchy, France remained as brutal a colonial power as Britain. Britain wasn't even governed by the monarch in the 1800s anyone. Regardless, why try to spin a line against the British here anyway?

Wolfie, I am also of the opinion that just killing Hitler would not have prevented eventual war and further persecution either, as I mentioned in my first post. However, for the sake of Zack's hypothetical scenario we are assuming it would

More interesting than this everything is Muslim fault at least lay the blame where it belongs, Colonial Europe.

And France was never able to fully move in line with the USA due to British incursions into mainland Europe.
yes they need money and had to take ethical decisions that they acknowledge at the time were less than ideal to fight off the war mongering British

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You know veya it does get boring how you make everything into bashing the British. Incidentally, you are probably wrong, even post monarchy, France remained as brutal a colonial power as Britain. Britain wasn't even governed by the monarch in the 1800s anyone. Regardless, why try to spin a line against the British here anyway?

Wolfie, I am also of the opinion that just killing Hitler would not have prevented eventual war and further persecution either, as I mentioned in my first post. However, for the sake of Zack's hypothetical scenario we are assuming it would

More interesting than this everything is Muslim fault at least lay the blame where it belongs, Colonial Europe.

And France was never able to fully move in line with the USA due to British incursions into mainland Europe.
yes they need money and had to take ethical decisions that they acknowledge at the time were less than ideal to fight off the war mongering British

How about Arabization?

Veya, I make no apologies for the British Empire, we had brave men who w.ere not afraid to risk their lives for the Empire, men who went round the world to make the British Empire the great success that it was. No other nation except Genghis Khan made such an impact on the world.
We brought peace and civilised living to a third of the planet who even now some follow the rules of our Parliament. YES we enforced our rules in some places with the Sword and Bullet, but overall we changed the world for the better at that time.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:
Bad people do bad things.   It's how we are, and how we're genetically disposed to a primal degree.   Most of us are either spiritually enough evolved to know this is wrong, and not even consider it an option at any level, or social conditioning prevents this.   Take away the safety of society and law and mayhem does ensue as has been proved over and over again on this planet.

"genetically disposed.."
"spiritually enough evolved..

Total and utter unsubstantiated bullshit..

From Horatio, still one of the stupidest and most clueless dolts on NewsFix.

Yes, human beings are inherently tribal... it was most logical way for our ancestors to live. We had to be as a more efficient means of survival, and it's mostly societal restraints that keep us living side by side in peace. When something like civil war occurs, those restraints are broken and what ensues can be seen throughout history. Haven't you ever witnessed a riot or seen the consequences when human beings lose control of themselves and act like an invading mob? Don't you think people can be spiritually evolved? You don't think say, the Dalai Lama is such? Or that people can be spiritual without being religious?

How about you stop stamping your trotters and chucking personal insults around because of your issues with people on here, and just debate like the rest of us.

Eilzel wrote:But in this hypothetical Zack, we would know the direct resukts of our otherwise terrible actions. None of us under ordinary circumstances would even consider killing a child. However, this is not an ordinary situation.

Given the chance to kill Hitler, save millions of lives and suffer no negative bufferfly effect, I think there is a fair argument to say that not carrying out the action might be a worse crime. You had the chance to save millions, with no consequence to anyone but the would-be dictator and his family-and you didn't do it. You would be directly condemning millions to (in your scenario) avoidable death surely?

And even saying that, I still don't know if I could do it.

Of course you would not be able to do it. Even if he was directly responsible for gassing one of your relatives.  

Think about it. You are there, in Klara's house and you look down on the crib and you see:



I know, you were expecting:



A defensive, vulnerable baby? I coudn't do it.

You'd like to play God, but have too much compassion. Or is that misplaced compassion?

I agree, it absolutely is compassion. But I do also think it is misplaced in this unique context. Our natural human instincts to protect, certainly not harm, a young child, would in this case be having a tragic effect.

nicko wrote:Veya, I make no apologies for the British Empire,  we had brave men who w.ere not afraid to risk their lives for the Empire, men who went round the world to make the British Empire the great success that it was.  No other nation except Genghis Khan made such an impact on the world.
We brought peace and civilised living to a third of the planet who even now some follow the rules of our Parliament.  YES we enforced our rules in some places with the Sword and Bullet,  but overall we changed the world for the better at that time.    

That is exactly what ISIS says too you know they will bring civilization through Islam by the sword and bullet. at least most Muslims are more civilized than the average brit to see the hypocrisy in that sentiment

Merely in your opinion of better, in the views of people that were displaced or killed No not better

I just knew you'd say that, doesn't change the fact that Brit's brought peace and prosperity and a more civilised way of living to many countries !

The fact that you don't like Brit's clouds your perspective of the many good things we did. You'd rather concentrate on the negatives.

nicko wrote:I just knew you'd say that,   doesn't change the fact that Brit's brought peace and prosperity and a more civilised way of living to many countries  !

The fact that you don't like Brit's clouds your perspective of the many good things we did.    You'd rather concentrate on the negatives.

I'd rather you acknowledge the many, many negatives


and 'peace'? what the fuck
Aboriginals did not know what war was.
across the empire you bought war an strife in the quest to take the resource you coveted from foreign lands.

Democracy that the colonies ended up with are hard fought Indeed most of the Democratic reforms come from Australia and went back to the UK not the other way around. we have universal vote and women's vote decades before the UK.

Just like we now export the ideals of Multiculturalism to the UK, Civilization has actually been sent to the UK from the new world

A closed mind is a terrible thing !

And your answer is total B/S, and you accuse Didge of being a Bigot, unbelievable !

Britain has a terribly bloody history, and there's no getting away from it. It did a few good things, like banning Suttee and abolishing slavery, but on the whole it was autonomous in it's rule.

But they were also, compared to now, brutal times, and Britain was not alone in this. Violence has always been at the core of any kind of take over or Empire, you can't just point the finger at Britain. Britain led the world in invention, mechanisation and industrial revolution.

One also has to ask why millions of Indian soldiers remained faithful to Britain and to a foreign Empire for over 200 years fighting gallantly by our side in the Second World War?

I believe it's all more complicated than just the horrors that happened. The finger could also be pointed at nearly every country on the planet.

Irish soldiers who swapped uniforms to fight for the British against Hitler went on to suffer years of persecution from their own country. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211

Switzerland - bankers to the Nazis, screwed thousands out of their money and supported the German war effort that killed millions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/35938.stm

Sweden - once had ambitions to rule the world. The destruction of Poland in the infamous Deluge was more extensive than the destruction of the country in World War two. Warsaw, the capital of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, was completely destroyed by the Swedes, and out of a pre-war population of 20,000, only 2,000 remained in the city after the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history)

Belgium carved out a vast Empire in Africa, one 77 times the size of Belgium itself. Called the Congo Colony, it was run by King Léopold II who, in almost record-time, started sacrificing his citizens for the Congo’s vast resources. Eight to ten million were killed by the Belgian Congo colonial rulers as they raped and squeezed the land in order to get more and more profit out of its jungles. http://historyaccess.com/leopoldiiofbelgi.html

Poland - Poland, instead of helping and offering to protect small Czechoslovakia from the Nazis, stood hand in hand with Hitler. When Hitler started to carve Czechoslovakia up, Poland actually helped the Nazis dismember the state by invading parts of Czechoslovakia with the Nazis and claiming portions of the country for Poland. But what goes around comes around and, not a year later, the Nazi Blitzkrieg burst across the Polish border and the rest is history.http://blogcritics.org/poland-joined-hitler-in-dismembering-czechoslovakia/

South Korea - the Bodo League Massacre, it has only recently been declassified by the South Korean government. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-korea-bloodbath-probe-ends-us-escapes-much-blame-2010jul10-story.html

Holland - In the process of setting up their very own Nutmeg Island, the Dutch were ruthless with the local population, killing any that got in their way and forcing the survivors to work under horrible conditions and handing out brutal punishments to anyone who traded Nutmeg with ships other than the Dutch. The island was so valuable that it was exchanged for the island of Manhattan, insuring that New Amsterdam would become New York. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/11/26/165657050/no-innocent-spice-the-secret-story-of-nutmeg-life-and-death

Canada - the bastion of workers’ rights, quickly banned anything containing even the tiniest bit of asbestos, along with the rest of the industrial world. Yet with large asbestos mines that employed lots of people, Canada couldn’t just stop mining the cancer rocks. Canada continues to export asbestos to Third World countries, even though they know that each package is basically the Grim Reaper wrapped up in white plastic. Friendly Ol’ Canada is the only western country to export asbestos, and actually fights international regulations that would prevent it from exporting all that cancer. When South Africa moved to ban asbestos, Canada threatened it with trade sanctions. http://www.preventcancernow.ca/canada-at-heart-of-global-asbestos-lobby

The list goes on and is endless.

People implying the British Empire was only bad or that ot was the sole most evil force in history are wrong and grossly exaggerating.

People implying the British Empire was only good or was a great civilising force are also wrong and willingly ignorant of the truth.

Both positions are ridiculous and arrogantly defended by people with bias or agendas. There was good and bad, I'd certainly argue that the British Empire's crimes were not made up for with what good it did do, but to say it was only a bad thing is to display a lack of understanding in the extreme.

To imply Britain was the only nation involved in colonialism and slavery is silly. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium etc all had equally brutal empires as mentioned above. Implying France was somehow different is utter nonsense.

nicko wrote:
.....

  doesn't change the fact that Brit's brought peace and prosperity and a more civilised way of living to many countries  !

....

Name one; just one !!!

Britain has never apologised for the institutionaled slaughter of hundreds of thousands of "First Nations" peoples across dozens of former colonies; nor paid any reparations for all that rape and pillage..

And Britain still owes $$2 billion$$ (plus 100 years interest..) to Oz and NZ from WWI.

Eilzel wrote:People implying the British Empire was only bad or that ot was the sole most evil force in history are wrong and grossly exaggerating.

People implying the British Empire was only good or was a great civilising force are also wrong and willingly ignorant of the truth.

Both positions are ridiculous and arrogantly defended by people with bias or agendas. There was good and bad, I'd certainly argue that the British Empire's crimes were not made up for with what good it did do, but to say it was only a bad thing is to display a lack of understanding in the extreme.

To imply Britain was the only nation involved in colonialism and slavery is silly. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium etc all had equally brutal empires as mentioned above. Implying France was somehow different is utter nonsense.

France is a classic case...

Spent 40 years nuking the,South Pacific...
And still,  those gutless Frenchies have never exploded a nuclear bomb on French soil  !!!

Scum of the first order.

And they sold armaments and missiles to the Iraqis during the 1st Gulf War..

nicko wrote:Veya, I make no apologies for the British Empire,  we had brave men who w.ere not afraid to risk their lives for the Empire, men who went round the world to make the British Empire the great success that it was.  No other nation except Genghis Khan made such an impact on the world.
We brought peace and civilised living to a third of the planet who even now some follow the rules of our Parliament.  YES we enforced our rules in some places with the Sword and Bullet,  but overall we changed the world for the better at that time.    

I'm sure you're grandchildren will be saying the same thing about Islam, after it takes over the UK.

I'm glad you are keeping an open mind.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere !

Eilzel wrote:People implying the British Empire was only bad or that ot was the sole most evil force in history are wrong and grossly exaggerating.

People implying the British Empire was only good or was a great civilising force are also wrong and willingly ignorant of the truth.

Both positions are ridiculous and arrogantly defended by people with bias or agendas. There was good and bad, I'd certainly argue that the British Empire's crimes were not made up for with what good it did do, but to say it was only a bad thing is to display a lack of understanding in the extreme.

To imply Britain was the only nation involved in colonialism and slavery is silly. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium etc all had equally brutal empires as mentioned above. Implying France was somehow different is utter nonsense.

Well there is none of the other here to defend themselves and all old world European so whats the diff? your all the same anyway
Ohh wait is only coloured people that get 200+ cultures turned into one?

Grow up you racist arse !

Veya, Australians are basically Europeans whose ancestors left their native land, willingly or not. Your ancestors stole that land too. Your ancestors treated the natives like shit until fairly recently. Do not maintain a delusion that Australians and western Europeans are all that different. We are not. Well, perhaps Australians are slightly more conservative but that's it.

Your aggression against what you like to call the old world is self-righteous and meaningless. You have a larger landmass by fortune of colonialism working in your favour. Your nation is as guilty as mine where Empire is concerned.

And let's not ignore the fact you tried to praise 19th century France while criticising the UK. As if France was not part of the land grabbing of that era or treated it's colonial subjects differently somehow.

would any of you go back and kill Mohammed as he has been responsible for around 300million deaths or more in the last 1400 years. hitler was a rank amateur compared to him.

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?

it might be better to kill his father

The Devil, You Know wrote:would any of you go back and kill Mohammed as he has been responsible for around 300million deaths or more in the last 1400 years. hitler was a rank amateur compared to him.

You could say the same about God, or man's interpretation of Him.