Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I thought of this question for months, and still never came up with an answer I am satisfied with:



Presented Situation: Mankind has come up with a time machine that will allow you to travel back in time before the Holocaust began. Your mission is to go back in time and assassinate Hitler, in order to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening. If you kill Hitler, the Holocaust will not happen, and all those lives will be spared


The PROBLEM: The Time Machine will only work once, and you only have enough power and accurate coordinates to travel to the time when Hitler was an infant. You have to kill Hitler when he was 2 years old. This will be your only chance to kill him and prevent the horrible atrocity that is the Holocaust.



Question: Can you do it ? Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ? Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?

Who says you would have to kill him? Why not just set him up for a better life, fix some of the things that could have made him into who he became? Or just have someone watch over him for his life.

I wouldn't do it. Not that its a baby Hitler. The morality of this isn't if I'd kill an infant to save all the lives lost in the Holocaust. It's if I'd take the chance of making such a dent in time as that. The Holocaust and WWII are huge parts of history. Not having them happen could have serious repercussions.

Without that, there probably wouldn't be the state of Israel. The "Holy Land" might be under Muslim control or Christian control. That'd be a huge difference in today's foreign policy.

Maybe one of the Jews killed would have ended up growing up to be an amazingly charismatic man who absolutely HATES Italians and would convince his Jewish brethren to exterminate all Italians.

I, personally, would not take that risk. The Holocaust was sad, yes. To be honest, I think most Jews would refuse to do this as well. I mean, what would they have to hold over the rest of the world's head?

Why stop at Hitler?

Oh yeah . . . have you ever hear temporal paradoxes? I personally wouldn't kill Hitler becuase there's no way to know the real outcome.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why stop at Hitler?

Oh yeah . . . have you ever hear temporal paradoxes? I personally wouldn't kill Hitler becuase there's no way to know the real outcome.

Yeah, I agree. Killing Hitler could have a major impact to the future of our world. For better or worse who knows, but I would leave things the way they are right now.

I wouldn't for several reasons.......

- no man should be punished for a deed until the deed is committed. Once I go back in time, there is no way to know if Adolf Hitler will even grow up to lead Germany....much less commit any atrocities.

- even if all events that have occurred in our recorded history were 100% garaunteed to occur again from the point I travel back in time....Hitler was never found guilty of a crime. While I am in no way a Nazi sympathizer, all we know of the "holocaust" is information given to us by Germany's enemies. The question of the holocaust has never been definetively answered. There are even many Jewish people who have led the search for information regarding the subject past that initially given to us during war and post war propoganda. One example, ofcourse, being the 300% inflation of the death toll from Auschwitz.......originally given as 4 million by Russia, accepted for decades until it was revealed the number was only 1.1 million........reducing the number of dead by 50% for all camps combined. While this was indeed horrible......not nearly as bad as reported by war/post war propoganda. Until all the facts are in....how could the man be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt when he was cleared of 3 million deaths over night that he was charged with for decades.

- I would never kill anybody. Killing one man is just as horriffic as killing 3 million.....even moreso as Hitler didn't actually kill them by his own hand, merely his orders. I would be worse than him.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I thought of this question for months, and still never came up with an answer I am satisfied with:



Presented Situation: Mankind has come up with a time machine that will allow you to travel back in time before the Holocaust began. Your mission is to go back in time and assassinate Hitler, in order to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening. If you kill Hitler, the Holocaust will not happen, and all those lives will be spared


The PROBLEM: The Time Machine will only work once, and you only have enough power and accurate coordinates to travel to the time when Hitler was an infant. You have to kill Hitler when he was 2 years old. This will be your only chance to kill him and prevent the horrible atrocity that is the Holocaust.



Question: Can you do it ? Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ? Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?

I would not do it, because it would not stop the Holocaust. There were thousands of people involved in the Holocaust. One of the other main players may have taken power and not made the mistakes the Hitler made. So, instead of 6 million people killed there may have been tens of millions of dead people.

No. Everything that has happened or will happen happens for a reason. Not because of God, religion, fate or anything else, but because these things happen. If something that major is changed, the entire Earth would be completely different. Hasn't anyone read A Sound of Thunder?

Originally posted by Strangelove
No. Everything that has happened or will happen happens for a reason. Not because of God, religion, fate or anything else, but because these things happen. If something that major is changed, the entire Earth would be completely different. Hasn't anyone read A Sound of Thunder?

Perhaps, There is the other side of the idea; no one can change the past.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps, There is the other side of the idea; no one can change the past. Yes, but if it could, we shouldn't anyway

Originally posted by Strangelove
Yes, but if it could, we shouldn't anyway

True, we could not say for sure what the out come would be.

Allow me to rephrase the argument:

If we presume that killing Hitler as an infant is the only way to prevent the Holocaust, and if we further presume that one has the means and opportunity to do so, would you; why or why not?

No I wouldn't do it.

A) we need the knowledge we gained from the second world war and what happened during.

B) I seriously doubt that killing Hitler would have stopped the second world war, before it even began. The world was so screwed up during that period that war was almost inevitable.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Allow me to rephrase the argument:

If we presume that killing Hitler as an infant is the only way to prevent the Holocaust, and if we further presume that one has the means and opportunity to do so, would you; why or why not? No, because the past should not be changed

No. Preventing the Holocaust from happening would be tantamount to depriving humanity of an important lesson, one which it needed to learn.
Originally posted by Strangelove
No. Everything that has happened or will happen happens for a reason. Not because of God, religion, fate or anything else, but because these things happen. If something that major is changed, the entire Earth would be completely different. Hasn't anyone read A Sound of Thunder?
There are two ways in which we can approach the phrase "Everything happens for a reason". It can mean that everything happens for a purpose, or that everything that happens is caused by previous events and conditions leading up to the event. In my opinion, the latter interpretation is true, but the former is not.

How does that test my morality?

Also, how can you think about such bullshit pseudo philosophy for months?

There is some crazy RETARDED logic being used in this thread.

Originally posted by Soleran
There is some crazy RETARDED logic being used in this thread.

Really? Would you care to elaborate?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Who says you would have to kill him? Why not just set him up for a better life, fix some of the things that could have made him into who he became? Or just have someone watch over him for his life.


You only one hour to spend with baby Hitler....you can't change his life in one hour....you either kill him or let him live

Originally posted by Strangelove
No. Everything that has happened or will happen happens for a reason. Not because of God, religion, fate or anything else, but because these things happen. If something that major is changed, the entire Earth would be completely different. Hasn't anyone read A Sound of Thunder?


If the theory of the existance of alternate realities is correct, than this point means nothing.

Originally posted by Fire
No I wouldn't do it.



Niether would I....I would not kill an infant for the actions of what he or she would do as an adult.


Originally posted by Fire
A) we need the knowledge we gained from the second world war and what happened during.



What knowledge would that be ? What assh*les some people can be ? The extant of human evil is nearly infinite ? I think we all already realize that without the Holocaust reminding us.






Originally posted by Fire
B) I seriously doubt that killing Hitler would have stopped the second world war, before it even began. The world was so screwed up during that period that war was almost inevitable.




It's not the second world war that we're talking about. It's the Holocaust that is the issue. Like Adam Poe said, presuming that killing Hitler would put a total prevention on the occurance of the Holocaust, would you kill baby Hitler or not ?


That's the point.

The question should be more like, would you kill someone as an infant that you know would kill one of your friends in the future, or become a child molester, ect. I know I can, just to know i can prevent suffering just to take a life that will be suffering anyways, all you have to do is pull the trigger, as long as I know i will not have any legal problems i would.

Originally posted by jgiant
The question should be more like, would you kill someone as an infant that you know would kill one of your friends in the future, or become a child molester, ect. I know I can, just to know i can prevent suffering just to take a life that will be suffering anyways, all you have to do is pull the trigger, as long as I know i will not have any legal problems i would.


Thank you for your honesty. Everyone else was feeding me semantic bullshit....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Thank you for your honesty. Everyone else was feeding me semantic bullshit.... No prob, Haha...would you be able to do it?

Originally posted by jgiant
No prob, Haha...would you be able to do it?


no


I couldn't kill Hitler as an infant because as an infant he is completely innocent and not deserving of being killed. I don't beleive in punishing someone for something they didn't do (yet)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If the theory of the existance of alternate realities is correct, than this point means nothing. How so? Because there might be a universe where the Holocaust didn't happen, it should be just fine and dandy to change our past so it doesn't happen in this reality either?

Changing the past is unconscionable, regardless of the motive.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Can you do it ?

No ****ing question I can.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ?

Yes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Originally posted by Strangelove
How so? Because there might be a universe where the Holocaust didn't happen, it should be just fine and dandy to change our past so it doesn't happen in this reality either?


I think allowing the Holocaust to occur when it could have been prevented is a far greater evil, than allowing it to happen simply because you don't want to disrespect the time stream





Originally posted by Strangelove
Changing the past is unconscionable, regardless of the motive.


Why ?


Do you seriously subscribe to that idealogy that "everything happens for a reason"


If so, then what's the point to even trying anything ?







Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No ****ing question I can.




Thanks for your honesty, thank you for going straight to the point and not feeding me any semantic bullshit as to why you think it shouldn't be done.

Honestly, I think most of you guys are full of shit...



Instead of just answering the question directly, you guys are trying to find loopholes around an actual answer, arguing how killing Hitler wouldn't really prevent the Holocaust, how changing time is immoral, blah blah blah etc.


That's pathetic....you guys can't just tackle this directly ? The question is quite specific....kill Hitler or don't....kill him as a child, or you never get that chance again.


Please stop side stepping....and if you DO not feel killing him would be the answer, then explain why, don't feed me this crap about how the holocaust is an important part of history.....why is it so important ? Why wouldn't you do it ?

Or why would you ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Honestly, I think most of you guys are full of shit...



Instead of just answering the question directly, you guys are trying to find loopholes around an actual answer, arguing how killing Hitler wouldn't really prevent the Holocaust, how changing time is immoral, blah blah blah etc.


That's pathetic....you guys can't just tackle this directly ? The question is quite specific....kill Hitler or don't....kill him as a child, or you never get that chance again.


Please stop side stepping....and if you DO not feel killing him would be the answer, then explain why, don't feed me this crap about how the holocaust is an important part of history.....why is it so important ? Why wouldn't you do it ?

Or why would you ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would not do it, because it would not stop the Holocaust. There were thousands of people involved in the Holocaust. One of the other main players may have taken power and not made the mistakes the Hitler made. So, instead of 6 million people killed there may have been tens of millions of dead people.

I would not do it, sounds direct to me.

What I am trying to say is why do we assume we have the worst possible past? Of all the possible out comes for WWII, we may have the best one. No one can really be sure, so killing Hitler may have been the wrong thing to do.

It is rather arrogant to come into a public forum, the Philosophy (the rational investigation of questions) Forum nonetheless, and dictate the allowable response from others. Aspects cited in the debate might not immediately be part of the dilemma, but they are still germane to the hypothetical choice if it were a real possibility. This hypothetical and abstract question touches upon much more than just the moral dilemma.

As it stands now, the main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events. This teleological process would require uncomfortable lessons to be learned. Given this supposition, it is not inconceivable that killing Hitler to avert his crimes would be an action against the best interest of humanity.

Is it right to commit murder, to avoid what one knows will be horrifying consequences for large numbers of people?
Would actually committing such a murder be sufficient to avoid those consequences, would it make a difference?
Is Hitler truly the primary cause of the horrors of the Holocaust, or is he the result of historical trends, which would have produced someone like him, even had he himself not been around?
Would preventing the Holocaust from happening be tantamount to depriving humanity of an important lesson, one which it needed to learn? Would this be an action against the best interest of humanity?If you do not wish to address or at least consider these questions, then you chose the wrong forum to pose your dilemma.

I think people should refer to Adam's post. The first post is clearly hinting at a definite- though badly elucidated- scenario.

Would you personally kill a baby to stop milions being killed as a result of his adult life, all else remaining the same?

I think six million dying is quite an extreme lesson. I prefer blackboards and that.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Honestly, I think most of you guys are full of shit...

Instead of just answering the question directly, you guys are trying to find loopholes around an actual answer, arguing how killing Hitler wouldn't really prevent the Holocaust, how changing time is immoral, blah blah blah etc.

That's pathetic....you guys can't just tackle this directly ? The question is quite specific....kill Hitler or don't....kill him as a child, or you never get that chance again.

Please stop side stepping....and if you DO not feel killing him would be the answer, then explain why, don't feed me this crap about how the holocaust is an important part of history.....why is it so important ? Why wouldn't you do it ?

Or why would you ?

Perhaps you meant the question in this vein (which, apparently, no one is appreciating): For the sake of this argument, time travel intervention yields simple, predictable consequences. No one has to worry about something worse arising down the ol' temporal road. You go back, kill Baby Adolf, and the world Does Become a better place in the history to follow.

Under these conditions: yes, I would go back and kill Hitler because, IMO, his one life--especially his actions to come in that life--do not hold anywhere near the same value as the millions of lives which would otherwise perish.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I thought of this question for months, and still never came up with an answer I am satisfied with:



Presented Situation: Mankind has come up with a time machine that will allow you to travel back in time before the Holocaust began. Your mission is to go back in time and assassinate Hitler, in order to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening. If you kill Hitler, the Holocaust will not happen, and all those lives will be spared


The PROBLEM: The Time Machine will only work once, and you only have enough power and accurate coordinates to travel to the time when Hitler was an infant. You have to kill Hitler when he was 2 years old. This will be your only chance to kill him and prevent the horrible atrocity that is the Holocaust.



Question: Can you do it ? Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ? Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?

I would travel back in time before he was dictator. I will go to the art ceremony he was in and make sure he wins the art award. That way, he would become a great artist besides a dictator.

Reading that did really hurt, Jacope.


Anyways, the question is flawed, though it is obvious what you are aiming at. There are many things to consider, as some said before, the Holocaust has brought a lot of good to the world too.

What you probably mean is a scenario where it is your decision whether one person dies by your decision or a million because of that person.

To me it is not answerable, I'd need further information.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think people should refer to Adam's post. The first post is clearly hinting at a definite- though badly elucidated- scenario.

Would you personally kill a baby to stop milions being killed as a result of his adult life, all else remaining the same?

I think six million dying is quite an extreme lesson. I prefer blackboards and that.


Exactly, that is the question being posed here.

I am not interested in whether or not you beleive changing history is immoral (even though that is a good question, and may result in interesting responses, but does derail the thread to a degree)



I mean, feel free to speak your mind, if you really feel that strongly about it, then say so, but please back up your point. Do not just claim that changing history is immoral, then leave. WHY is it immoral?

And since many of you guys brought this up, is the worth of the lesson we learned from the Holocaust equivelent to the suffering and death that millions of innocent people went through ?

I personally feel it is not....if you disagree, then explain why....


However, please do not side step or evade the primary question while you are at it. Which is:


**************************************************
*********

*Presuming that killing Hitler would prevent the Holocaust, would you go back in time and assassinate him given the chance...the only catch is that you will not be killing him as an adult..you will have to kill him as an infant....can you do it, yes or no ?*


**************************************************
**********





Incase many of you did not read my response, my answer was that I couldn't do it. Not because I feel changing history is wrong (especially since I believe in the possibility of alternate realities)- but because quite simply, I do not have the balls to kill an infant



Quiero Mota may have the balls to do it....heck, many of you probably have what it takes to kill an infant in order to save (or as you guys put it, attempt to save) millions of people from pointless slaughter and torture.

But I don't...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Exactly, that is the question being posed here.

I am not interested in whether or not you beleive changing history is immoral (even though that is a good question, and may result in interesting responses, but does derail the thread to a degree)



I mean, feel free to speak your mind, if you really feel that strongly about it, then say so, but please back up your point. Do not just claim that changing history is immoral, then leave. WHY is it immoral?

And since many of you guys brought this up, is the worth of the lesson we learned from the Holocaust equivelent to the suffering and death that millions of innocent people went through ?

I personally feel it is not....if you disagree, then explain why....


However, please do not side step or evade the primary question while you are at it. Which is:


**************************************************
*********

*Presuming that killing Hitler would prevent the Holocaust, would you go back in time and assassinate him given the chance...the only catch is that you will not be killing him as an adult..you will have to kill him as an infant....can you do it, yes or no ?*


**************************************************
**********





Incase many of you did not read my response, my answer was that I couldn't do it. Not because I feel changing history is wrong (especially since I believe in the possibility of alternate realities)- but because quite simply, I do not have the balls to kill an infant



Quiero Mota may have the balls to do it....heck, many of you probably have what it takes to kill an infant in order to save (or as you guys put it, attempt to save) millions of people from pointless slaughter and torture.

But I don't...

If the primus is you will stop the holocaust by killing the infant Hitler, then I would kill the baby, without any hesitation. The life of one child is insignificant when compared with the lives of millions, plus he will simply reincarnate in a new life.

However, how can you be sure that the death of one person can change history?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Exactly, that is the question being posed here.

I am not interested in whether or not you beleive changing history is immoral (even though that is a good question, and may result in interesting responses, but does derail the thread to a degree)



I mean, feel free to speak your mind, if you really feel that strongly about it, then say so, but please back up your point. Do not just claim that changing history is immoral, then leave. WHY is it immoral?

And since many of you guys brought this up, is the worth of the lesson we learned from the Holocaust equivelent to the suffering and death that millions of innocent people went through ?

I personally feel it is not....if you disagree, then explain why....


However, please do not side step or evade the primary question while you are at it. Which is:


**************************************************
*********

*Presuming that killing Hitler would prevent the Holocaust, would you go back in time and assassinate him given the chance...the only catch is that you will not be killing him as an adult..you will have to kill him as an infant....can you do it, yes or no ?*


**************************************************
**********





Incase many of you did not read my response, my answer was that I couldn't do it. Not because I feel changing history is wrong (especially since I believe in the possibility of alternate realities)- but because quite simply, I do not have the balls to kill an infant



Quiero Mota may have the balls to do it....heck, many of you probably have what it takes to kill an infant in order to save (or as you guys put it, attempt to save) millions of people from pointless slaughter and torture.

But I don't...

What does that tell us about our morality now?

I answered truthfully on the first page. I wouldn't. The man was never found guilty of any crime. All any of us know of him is from war/post war propoganda. Hell, even another poster in this thread has fallen prey to propoganda as he stated 6 million jews had died in the Holocaust........when it was revealed a few years back that it was only 3 million....the Russians had estimated the death toll at Auschwitz as 4 million instead of it's 1.2 or so million that actually happened. If a man can be cleared of 3 million deaths over night.....he was charged with for decades only to find out they never took place.........who are any of us to condemn someone to death without a trial for the other 3 million deaths that occurred, based soly on propoganda released by his enemies.

It doesn't get any simpler than that. I wasn't there, you weren't there. We only know what the enemies of the nazis have told us. We later found out that a portion of what they told us was a lie.....so we are to condemn a man to death without ever knowing his side of the story, his defense.....based soly on the word of his enemies which lied about him in the past? I hope anyone who does that never serves on a jury if I'm ever charged with a crime.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Hell, even another poster in this thread has fallen prey to propoganda as he stated 6 million jews had died in the Holocaust........when it was revealed a few years back that it was only 3 million.

Shit, sorry.

Don't worry about it then. I didn't realise it was so few.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I thought of this question for months, and still never came up with an answer I am satisfied with:



Presented Situation: Mankind has come up with a time machine that will allow you to travel back in time before the Holocaust began. Your mission is to go back in time and assassinate Hitler, in order to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening. If you kill Hitler, the Holocaust will not happen, and all those lives will be spared


The PROBLEM: The Time Machine will only work once, and you only have enough power and accurate coordinates to travel to the time when Hitler was an infant. You have to kill Hitler when he was 2 years old. This will be your only chance to kill him and prevent the horrible atrocity that is the Holocaust.



Question: Can you do it ? Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ? Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?

I wouldn't kill him. I'd just cause so much trauma and fear that he'd lack the self esteem to lead anyone, let alone a nation.

And just for kickers, I'd **** his mom.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shit, sorry.

Don't worry about it then. I didn't realise it was so few.


Hahahahahahaha, I was going to make a funny response but yours was good enough.

Originally posted by BackFire
Hahahahahahaha, I was going to make a funny response but yours was good enough.

Though not perfect?

Coulda used a bit more rape references and a few insults at you, but overall it was very good, 8 out of 10.

I'd paid some assassin to do it for me. A more professional job since I'm a lousy shooter.

HA! Beat that suckers!

Originally posted by BackFire
Coulda used a bit more rape references and a few insults at you, but overall it was very good, 8 out of 10.

I'm sure a couple of the only 3 million got r.....

You are a sick man, Backfire. A sick, sick man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm sure a couple of the only 3 million got r.....

You are a sick man, Backfire. A sick, sick man.

Love me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Reading that did really hurt, Jacope. You didnt know? Hitler always wanted to be an Artist when he was younger, but lost the award to a JEW or something like that. I swear, im not kidding no matter how odd and bizzarre this sounds.

Originally posted by JacopeX
You didnt know? Hitler always wanted to be an Artist when he was younger, but lost the award to a JEW or something like that. I swear, im not kidding no matter how odd and bizzarre this sounds.

I believe you're referencing a Family Guy joke.

Sadly, Family Guy isn't an authority on historical accuracy, though it should be.

Originally posted by BackFire
Love me. Always have and always will.

Originally posted by JacopeX
You didnt know? Hitler always wanted to be an Artist when he was younger, but lost the award to a JEW or something like that. I swear, im not kidding no matter how odd and bizzarre this sounds.

Oh I know you are not kidding. You are just wrong.

Though the Art School application is accurate. The rest is...well, if not made up then a rather uneducated guess.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shit, sorry.

Don't worry about it then. I didn't realise it was so few.

the point is not the actual number. the point is that all you know....or I know....is the information given to us by the enemies of the nazis.......information that has, in the past, proved to be completely inaccurate........I'd say 3 million counts of murder wrongly charged to someone is a big deal, even if he is responsible for 3 million others.

how could you kill someone with your own hand without ever knowing for sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of crimes he is charged with? He was never on trial. He was never allowed to defend himself. I couldn't pull the trigger......no matter what his enemies said he did.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
the point is not the actual number. the point is that all you know....or I know....is the information given to us by the enemies of the nazis.......information that has, in the past, proved to be completely inaccurate........I'd say 3 million counts of murder wrongly charged to someone is a big deal, even if he is responsible for 3 million others.

how could you kill someone with your own hand without ever knowing for sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of crimes he is charged with? He was never on trial. He was never allowed to defend himself. I couldn't pull the trigger......no matter what his enemies said he did.

For the right reasons I could do it to an "innocent" infant.

not being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means "innocent".

What about the information given to us by eyewitness, people who actually were in the concentration camps and saw the attrocities Hitler factually committed.

Regardless of the actual number of deaths he's responsible for, the fact remains that millions of people were killed by him out of blind pure hatred. Thus, you could know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed a lot of ****ing people, whatever the actual number.

Then again..what kind of court in the world would accept him as an innocent man.

Look, Hitler lived in an era of Gangsters and Low life thugs (well, actually, we're still living in those times...but anyways.) just hired some Hitman and take him out.

If you can find Hitler is innocent because he didn't really kill anyone directly.

Then why would you find me hiring a Hitman to kill him...wrong?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
not being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means "innocent".

That's the point. If there is a very big chance that what is claimed might happen, that could be enough reason to do it.

Originally posted by BackFire
What about the information given to us by eyewitness, people who actually were in the concentration camps and saw the attrocities Hitler factually committed.

Regardless of the actual number of deaths he's responsible for, the fact remains that millions of people were killed by him out of blind pure hatred. Thus, you could know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed a lot of ****ing people, whatever the actual number.


perhaps, perhaps not. While I agree Hitler is responsible for every single death that occurred in a concentration camp....I have never seen evidence that it was out of "blind, pure hatred". His beliefs were that his German race was being dilluted by Jews......it was not out of hate that he wanted them gone, it was to keep Jewish blood from further mingling with Aryan. Evidence (in the form of official documentation) was recovered after the war re-inforcing this........as the Nazis had tried to rid Germany from Jews for 2 years before resorting to the camps. That is why it was called the "final" solution.

what he did was wrong in my point of view.......but it's not my place to condemn him. He ruled his country and made decisions that resulted in the deaths of 3 million jews. How many slaves does that make George Washington responsible for killing when he was in power of the US. Are we to go back and kill Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. when they were infants too? Do Jewish lives mean more than Black lives? ofcourse not. They were doing what they thought best for their country at the time.......just as Hitler was. We don't agree with what he thought best......but he had the right to make such decisions. Hell....we ourselves rounded up Japanese Americans and put into camps during WWII. Some did indeed die in those camps...........it wasn't 3 million but a life is a life.......are we to go back and kill Roosevelt when he was a child? He was doing what he thought best for his country........

It's not my place to condemn people for the decisions they made when there is no possible way I can relate to any of the variables that went into their decision making. I couldn't kill George Washington as a boy.....I couldn't kill Thomas Jefferson as a boy.......I couldn't kill Adolf Hitler as a boy........I couldn't go back and kill any world leader as a child based soley on the amount of deaths that occurred as a result of their decisions as adults.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
perhaps, perhaps not. While I agree Hitler is responsible for every single death that occurred in a concentration camp....I have never seen evidence that it was out of "blind, pure hatred". His beliefs were that his German race was being dilluted by Jews......it was not out of hate that he wanted them gone, it was to keep Jewish blood from further mingling with Aryan. Evidence (in the form of official documentation) was recovered after the war re-inforcing this........as the Nazis had tried to rid Germany from Jews for 2 years before resorting to the camps. That is why it was called the "final" solution.

what he did was wrong in my point of view.......but it's not my place to condemn him. He ruled his country and made decisions that resulted in the deaths of 3 million jews. How many slaves does that make George Washington responsible for killing when he was in power of the US. Are we to go back and kill Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. when they were infants too? Do Jewish lives mean more than Black lives? ofcourse not. They were doing what they thought best for their country at the time.......just as Hitler was. We don't agree with what he thought best......but he had the right to make such decisions. Hell....we ourselves rounded up Japanese Americans and put into camps during WWII. Some did indeed die in those camps...........it wasn't 3 million but a life is a life.......are we to go back and kill Roosevelt when he was a child? He was doing what he thought best for his country........

It's not my place to condemn people for the decisions they made when there is no possible way I can relate to any of the variables that went into their decision making. I couldn't kill George Washington as a boy.....I couldn't kill Thomas Jefferson as a boy.......I couldn't kill Adolf Hitler as a boy........I couldn't go back and kill any world leader as a child based soley on the amount of deaths that occurred as a result of their decisions as adults.

The evidence that he hated them is in the fact that he thought that murdering them was a lesser evil than allowing their blood to marry with the aryans. He had these feelings quite simply because of prejudice and hatred. He hated them so that he saw them as a lesser lifeform, subhuman, even. This semantical stuff of "well, he didn't REALLY hate them, he just wanted them dead so they wouldn't soil genes" is incredibly weak, IMO. I think it's clear to any reasonable person that hatred was the main basis for his actions against the jews, no matter how it may have been disguised. Come on, man "No, I don't hate them, *kills, murders, tortures jews* I just don't want them merging with my people" You really buy that?.

As far as the second paragraph, intent is the important factor there. All of the above mentioned made terrible decisions and yes, a life is a life, but Washington didn't go out with the intent to murder every single black person just because he didn't like them. Roosevelt wasn't attempting to slaughter every asian person he saw as if they were a scourge set on the planet, their intentions were all much different from Hitlers. They made bad decisions that caused some death in the process, though it wasn't their intention. Murder was Hitler's intention, he intended to kill jews - fact.

Originally posted by BackFire
I believe you're referencing a Family Guy joke.

Sadly, Family Guy isn't an authority on historical accuracy, though it should be. Whatever episode you are trying to refer, I probably never seen it since I have no clue what you are talking about.

I would like to tell you the story but I have a feeling that people are just going to doubt it.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Whatever episode you are trying to refer, I probably never seen it since I have no clue what you are talking about.

I would like to tell you the story but I have a feeling that people are just going to doubt it.

Oh, you can tell us the story alright. But really, it is not true. He got refused twice by an Austrian art school. That's a fact. Rest you said didn't happen.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, you can tell us the story alright. But really, it is not true. He got refused twice by an Austrian art school. That's a fact. Rest you said didn't happen. Actually, my teacher told me an interesting story matter of fact. She said that a co worker dropped down all of a sudden one day because of the deaths of the holocaust. He was a Jew by the way. And the man said that he won the Award or something, (Sorry I forgot that par). He also said that if Hitler would of won it, he would've been a great artist. and you just came up with Hitler and his interests in art giving my story more probability of being true and I know it is!

Originally posted by JacopeX
Actually, my teacher told me an interesting story matter of fact. She said that a co worker dropped down all of a sudden one day because of the deaths of the holocaust. He was a Jew by the way. And the man said that he won the Award or something, (Sorry I forgot that par). He also said that if Hitler would of won it, he would've been a great artist. and you just came up with Hitler and his interests in art giving my story more probability of being true and I know it is!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Oh Jesus ****ing Mc Jew, I wish PVS or KharmDog would be around to see that. Dude, you just made my day, week and month.

Originally posted by Bardock42
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Oh Jesus ****ing Mc Jew, I wish PVS or KharmDog would be around to see that. Dude, you just made my day, week and month. I pity how you dont even take the chance to even think about it. Now you will go and make a joke of it. this is why we will never get to the truth now days because the truth will always be denied by a bunch of jackasses.

Example: UFO's, Ghost, 9/11(The Gov. did not do it!), Ect.

Originally posted by JacopeX
I pity how you dont even take the chance to even think about it. Now you will go and make a joke of it. this is why we will never get to the truth now days because the truth will always be denied by a bunch of jackasses.

Example: UFO's, Ghost, 9/11(The Gov. did not do it!), Ect.

Dude.

Come on. Okay, what evidence do you have? Actual evidence. Provide me with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude.

Come on. Okay, what evidence do you have? Actual evidence. Provide me with it. Evidence? How the hell can give you evidence if im the one reporting?

Was I suppose to take notes? Am I suppose to bring a video camera every time I go to school to record stories my Teachers say?

Or do you want evidence of the story because if thats the case then no.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Evidence? How the hell can give you evidence if im the one reporting?

Was I suppose to take notes? Am I suppose to bring a video camera every time I go to school to record stories my Teachers say?

Or do you want evidence of the story because if thats the case then no.

Well...obviously I want evidence of the story. If what you say is true, then there must be some evidence for it. There is for the application to an Art School, where is for the contest?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...obviously I want evidence of the story. If what you say is true, then there must be some evidence for it. There is for the application to an Art School, where is for the contest? You know, I might of used the word "win" wrong. I think the word im looking for is "receive" If you mean win is like a contest.

Originally posted by BackFire
As far as the second paragraph, intent is the important factor there. All of the above mentioned made terrible decisions and yes, a life is a life, but Washington didn't go out with the intent to murder every single black person just because he didn't like them. Roosevelt wasn't attempting to slaughter every asian person he saw as if they were a scourge set on the planet, their intentions were all much different from Hitlers. They made bad decisions that caused some death in the process, though it wasn't their intention. Murder was Hitler's intention, he intended to kill jews - fact.


American Indians

Originally posted by Soleran
American Indians Yes, that was bad, but are we really going to compare the two atrocities to see which was a worse atrocity? What will that accomplish?

Originally posted by Marxman
Yes, that was bad, but are we really going to compare the two atrocities to see which was a worse atrocity? What will that accomplish?

If intent is a "moral" marker then you be the judge.

Originally posted by Soleran
American Indians

They were killed because of turf disputes; not because an American president made a 'final solution' to round up all the 'Injuns' and and gas them all.

Originally posted by Soleran
If intent is a "moral" marker then you be the judge.

Intent is always a moral marker.

Jacope, the Reason Hitler was rejected was because even though he painted beautiful landscapes he never painted people. Because of his refusal and lack of ability to illustrate the human face and the human form, he was not accepted.



That's kind of scary if you think about it.....Hitler never painted people. What does that say about his psyche ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Jacope, the Reason Hitler was rejected was because even though he painted beautiful landscapes he never painted people. Because of his refusal and lack of ability to illustrate the human face and the human form, he was not accepted.



That's kind of scary if you think about it.....Hitler never painted people. What does that say about his psyche ?

...nothing?

Maybe that he thought he was not good at painting people? But jsut maybe.

Anyways, your "test"....how does it "test" my morality?

And by the way, Jacope, Hitler did not lose an award to a Jew...where the f*ck did you get that from ?



Adolf Hitler was rejected from an Austrian Art school, because of his lack of people illustrations in his portfolio. Many of the board members of that school happened to be Jewish...that was all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...nothing?

Maybe that he thought he was not good at painting people? But jsut maybe.

Anyways, your "test"....how does it "test" my morality?



It forces you to decide what you value more....the life of an innocent infant or the lives of millions of innocent people. I don't see how you can't put two and two together.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the primus is you will stop the holocaust by killing the infant Hitler, then I would kill the baby, without any hesitation. The life of one child is insignificant when compared with the lives of millions, plus he will simply reincarnate in a new life.




Thank you, this is basically what I was looking for.

You have guts, because even if killing baby Hitler had a 100% guarantee that the Holocaust would never happen, I don't think I could do it. I'm way too sensitive and p*ssy to kill a baby.





Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, how can you be sure that the death of one person can change history?


I can't..but that's not the point.



As Adam Poe stated, under the premise that killing Hitler would result in the prevention of the Holocaust, would you try to prevent it yes or no....


And btw, if you beleive in the Chaos Theory, then killing one person can totally change history...since according to the chaos theory, one tiny action has echoes of consequences that lead to an infinite array of other consequences.



If you want to insist that Hitler alone is not entirely responsible for the Holocaust, then fine, but that's going off topic.


But then again, this is the Philosophy forum, and i guess going off topic here and there is inevitable

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It forces you to decide what you value more....the life of an innocent infant or the lives of millions of innocent people. I don't see how you can't put two and two together.

And what is moral now and what not and to what degree?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

As Adam Poe stated, under the premise that killing Hitler would result in the prevention of the Holocaust, would you try to prevent it yes or no....

If the only result was that the Holocaust would be stopped then I probably would do it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And btw, if you beleive in the Chaos Theory, then killing one person can totally change history...since according to the chaos theory, one tiny action has echoes of consequences that lead to an infinite array of other consequences.


Exactly why I said I wouldn't kill him.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And by the way, Jacope, Hitler did not lose an award to a Jew...where the f*ck did you get that from ?



Adolf Hitler was rejected from an Austrian Art school, because of his lack of people illustrations in his portfolio. Many of the board members of that school happened to be Jewish...that was all. Exactly. You should read my last post. I made a mistake of using words wrongly if you want to take it that way. But still, the man that my teahcer worked with happens to be in that same school.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And what is moral now and what not and to what degree?


Why are you asking me ?


This thread is intended to get you to question yourself. I see you haven't posted your answer yet.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Why are you asking me ?


This thread is intended to get you to question yourself. I see you haven't posted your answer yet.

That is inaccurate. As I have.

My bad....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And by the way, Jacope, Hitler did not lose an award to a Jew...where the f*ck did you get that from ?



Adolf Hitler was rejected from an Austrian Art school, because of his lack of people illustrations in his portfolio. Many of the board members of that school happened to be Jewish...that was all.
He might have been alluding to Hitler' s nomination for the Nobel Prize.

Originally posted by Storm
He might have been alluding to Hitler' s nomination for the Nobel Prize.


If Hitler had lost an award to a Jew, than I will admit ignorance and apologize. However, i seemed as though he was discussing Hitler's rejection from an Austrian Fine Arts school, which was a separate situation.

Originally posted by Storm
He might have been alluding to Hitler' s nomination for the Nobel Prize.

Well, that would be stupid for a number of reasons.

Though funny, I have to admit.

It was in 1938 or 1939, but his nomination was eventually retracted. I don' t know if someone took his place.

Originally posted by Storm
It was in 1938 or 1939, but his nomination was eventually retracted. I don' t know if someone took his place.


Hitler definately suffered a lot though....abuse from his father, watching his mother abused as well...not to mention his extreme inferiority complex, etc.

Originally posted by Fire
No I wouldn't do it.

A) we need the knowledge we gained from the second world war and what happened during.



Yep, that's just about the best argument against it, agreed.

Originally posted by Dinalfos
Yep, that's just about the best argument against it, agreed.


What knowledge would that be, and why do we need it ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What knowledge would that be, and why do we need it ?

Europe is a much safer and more peaceful place now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Europe is a much safer and more peaceful place now.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen


Hmm...

No, for several reasons.

Firstly, Hitler was not the sole reason for the begining of WWII. If willson's 14 points were taken into account by the Allies, and the GErmany was not so brutalised after WWI, the chances of Hitler coming into power are slimer.
There are numerous factors which brought about holocaust, and it wasn;t just the idea that Hitler existed. The situation is just too complex.

Furthermore, as already been said, there were lessons for humanity to learn from Holocaust.

Anyone who has seen any of Hitler's artwork would know better than to say he was ever going to be a great artist.

Take 2:

So far, everyone's been basically giving the same kind of answer, some variation of: "I wouldn't kill Hitler because no one knows what the consequences of intervening would be, that something worse might happen."

IMO, this answer addresses a peripheral issue--perhaps even a loophole--and I don't know if that was the original intent of the question. But now I'm curious: what if this loophole was Not a concern...
For the sake of this argument, time travel intervention yields simple, predictable consequences. No one has to worry about something worse arising down the ol' temporal road. You go back, kill Baby Adolf, and the world Does Become a better place in the history to follow.

Given the above, now what would be your answer?

Originally posted by Mindship
Take 2:

So far, everyone's been basically giving the same kind of answer, some variation of: "I wouldn't kill Hitler because no one knows what the consequences of intervening would be, that something worse might happen."

IMO, this answer addresses a peripheral issue--perhaps even a loophole--and I don't know if that was the original intent of the question. But now I'm curious: what if this loophole was Not a concern...


Given the above, now what would be your answer?

Will I be in that future, would it be much better for me and without other consequences?

Well, hell yeah, I'd ****ing kill the mother****er right there.

Originally posted by Mindship
Take 2:

So far, everyone's been basically giving the same kind of answer, some variation of: "I wouldn't kill Hitler because no one knows what the consequences of intervening would be, that something worse might happen."

IMO, this answer addresses a peripheral issue--perhaps even a loophole--and I don't know if that was the original intent of the question. But now I'm curious: what if this loophole was Not a concern...


Given the above, now what would be your answer?

I'd kill him without hesitation and monitor the situation so I could assassinate other potential war starters.

I am morally grey or is it bankrupt

A thread about Hitler.....


He's evil.

So the question, essentially, is "Would you kill a baby if the benefits outweighed the disadvantages?"

I think I would have a problem taking life, period. I don't see how a baby's life is worth more than mine. I don't see how killing Hitler as a baby, as a 9 year old, as a 24 year old, or as a 46 year old is different. You're murdering a person.

Even with the knowledge of the killing of baby Adolf would save millions of people, I don't think I could do it. I'd be killing and I think, once someone kills, that person has changed inside.

Originally posted by The Libertine
A thread about Hitler.....


He's evil.

I don't believe that a person is good or evil, but the path they are on is good or evil. The actions a person does is good or evil, and their actions are result of their karma.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe that a person is good or evil, but the path they are on is good or evil. The actions a person does is good or evil, and their actions are result of their karma.

You don'tbelieve in Evil.........

What are you Budha or something?

Originally posted by The Libertine
You don'tbelieve in Evil.........

What are you Budha or something?

What do you mean when you ask me if I believe in evil?
Good and evil are descriptors. They help us understand the effects of certain causes.

No, I am not Buddha, he died ~3000 years ago, however, I am a Buddhist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I am not Buddha, he died ~3000 years ago, however, I am a Buddhist.

That explains it grasshopper.

Originally posted by The Libertine
That explains it grasshopper.


Are you a blind, old monk?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you a blind, old monk?

shhhsh it's a secret. I have found "oneness" before and that can make you go blind.

Originally posted by The Libertine
shhhsh it's a secret. I have found "oneness" before and that can make you go blind.

I thought it was excessive 131wank that did that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought it was excessive "oneness" that did that.

Yes it is enlightening

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe that a person is good or evil, but the path they are on is good or evil. The actions a person does is good or evil, and their actions are result of their karma.

But isn't there karma the result of their actions.

Have we got a what came first chicken or egg predicement here?

Originally posted by Help
But isn't there karma the result of their actions.

Have we got a what came first chicken or egg predicement here?

Karma is the result of their actions, but it is their karma that is evil and not the person. A person can change their karma by creating good karma.

oh snap. We had a 50 page discussion on this topic a few years ago......... it was the egg. Completely off topic I know but you just reminded me of that.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
oh snap. We had a 50 page discussion on this topic a few years ago......... it was the egg. Completely off topic I know but you just reminded me of that.

Now, stop that.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, for several reasons.

Firstly, Hitler was not the sole reason for the begining of WWII. If willson's 14 points were taken into account by the Allies, and the GErmany was not so brutalised after WWI, the chances of Hitler coming into power are slimer.
There are numerous factors which brought about holocaust, and it wasn;t just the idea that Hitler existed. The situation is just too complex.


Umm...Lil B, we've been through this already...under the premise that killing Hitler would prevent the Holocaust would you do it or not ?


The point to this thread is to test how far you would go to stop something evil. Arguing about whether or not Hitler was the most necessary component for the Holocaust (NOT WWI or WWII) is irrelevant.




Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Furthermore, as already been said, there were lessons for humanity to learn from Holocaust.


This has been said already, but why ?


1) What lessons were learned ? You guys keep talking about it, but you never actually describe what you are trying to say...



2) And secondly, whatever these lessons are, is our knowledge of them worth and equal to the unspeakable suffering that the Holocause victims went through?



I know one thing for certain....i could care less what lesson my torment teaches nebody....i aint gonna fkn allow myself to be tormented just so someone else can learn from my pain.


I seriously doubt the Holocaust victims gave a sh*t who learned what from thier torture.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) What lessons were learned ? You guys keep talking about it, but you never actually describe what you are trying to say...

Again, that is not true.

The western world did not participate in any war remotely on that scale. Anti-Semitism has decreased. Most of Europe and the US and many other Western Countries, work together peacefully, there hasn't been anything close to a war between them since. War itself is generally seen as wrong, pacifism is on the uprising.

There's just a shitload of good that came from the Holocaust and World War 2, you can't just deny that, would you like to live in a pre-world-war 2 environment? Seriously?

Among other things, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention establishes genocide as an international crime, which signatory nations undertake to prevent and punish.

But it is more interesting to put together some research yourself, and venture into the matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, that is not true.



What is not true ? No one specified until now...you are the only person who answered that question as of now (and Storm 2)




Originally posted by Bardock42
The western world did not participate in any war remotely on that scale. Anti-Semitism has decreased. Most of Europe and the US and many other Western Countries, work together peacefully, there hasn't been anything close to a war between them since. War itself is generally seen as wrong, pacifism is on the uprising.


1) Where has Anti Semitism decreased ? If you are talking about Europe and United States there are far more factors which contributed to the decrease in discriminaton against Jews. But yes, the Holocaust played a major role in that, in helping the rest of us reflect on our own hatred.


However, I don't think many of the Arab nations learned anything from the Holocaust, as Anti-Semitism is just as great as it ever was there.





2) The reason there hasn't been a war on that scale is because we have nuclear power now. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that pretty much showed everyone who was boss.

The world is collectively doing thier best to avoid another world war, because this time the destruction would be far worse. Nuclear warfare is the easiest way to destroy our human race, and so far...very few want to test that.

I doubt that Kim Jong, Saddam Hussien, and Osama Bin Ladin feel any pity or learned anything from the Holocaust (maybe they learned how many ashes you get when you fry a Jew)






Originally posted by Bardock42
There's just a shitload of good that came from the Holocaust and World War 2, you can't just deny that, would you like to live in a pre-world-war 2 environment? Seriously?



I think the good that came from the Holocaust does not outweigh or justify the bad. And the "good" that you claim is a direct cause of the Holocaust has so many other factors involved in its making.


Holocaust may have shocked us out of our lack of empathy and sped up the process of change, but those changes you mentioned have other major causes as well.


So you named a few goods...


-decrease in Anti-Semitism
-global effort to avoid another world war


Okay....let's name the bad that came from the Holocaust:



-millions of people dead
-families separated and humiliated
-people having thier genitals cut off
-people frying in ovens
-people starving to death
-people dying with thier organs exposed to the air
-infants being used for target practice
-people having thier teeth and jaws broken
-people having thier hands and other limbs broken or cut off
-people dying of severe cold
-pregnant women being frozen to death
-pregnant women being experimented on
-people being skinned alive
-people being impaled
-etc.



Unspeakable varities of pain and suffering.....I don't know about you, but I'd expect far more social advances and peaceful relations than we have today as a result from our "lessons learned"

no it's not. Nothing on this earth is universally evil. Good and evil are relative to each individual. You are really asking how far people would go to prevent something that YOU decide is evil. You then give the thread a title like, "test your morality".......where again I assume that you shall be the judge of people's responses based on your own conception of good or evil.

you see a man doing "evil, boogy boogy"........I see a man with great power and responsibility making decisions he thought best for his country........while I don't agree with them.....I do believe he was doing what HE thought was best, which was his job. I can not relate to the power or responsibility he had......nor to the morals he lived his life by and how they interacted with one another. All I can say is I wouldn't have made the same decisions...........not punish him to death because he didn't do what I would have. There are millions of people daily who make decisions I myself would not make.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
no it's not.



Yes it is. This isn't about a history lesson. This is about how far you would go to prevent something you thnk is evil. If you do not think what Hitler did was evil, then you can easily say, "I'd do nothing, because I don't think what he did was wrong"




Originally posted by Evil Dead
Nothing on this earth is universally evil.



Is that a fact ?


How do you know ?




Originally posted by Evil Dead
Good and evil are relative to each individual. You are really asking how far people would go to prevent something that YOU decide is evil.



If you think it was evil, then how far would you go to stop it...that's all. IF you don't think it was evil, then that's another story..you are free to say " i dont think what he did was evil", therefore I wouldn't stop it.






Originally posted by Evil Dead
You then give the thread a title like, "test your morality".......where again I assume that you shall be the judge of people's responses based on your own conception of good or evil.


Where the f*ck are you getting this from ?


Get your head outta your ass...I'm not here to judge. I'm here to know what people give more value to...the life of one human infant, or the lives of over a million people...and why...


That's all...the rest of you are getting all stupid with technicalities. That's why I intervened with some of the answers.




Originally posted by Evil Dead
you see a man doing "evil, boogy boogy"........I see a man with great power and responsibility making decisions he thought best for his country........while I don't agree with them.....I do believe he was doing what HE thought was best, which was his job. I can not relate to the power or responsibility he had......nor to the morals he lived his life by and how they interacted with one another. All I can say is I wouldn't have made the same decisions...........not punish him to death because he didn't do what I would have. There are millions of people daily who make decisions I myself would not make.



So you wouldn't kill him....that's fine. I wouldn't either, but for different reasons.



Your semantics were unnecessary and irrelevant.

Originally posted by Mindship
Take 2:

So far, everyone's been basically giving the same kind of answer, some variation of: "I wouldn't kill Hitler because no one knows what the consequences of intervening would be, that something worse might happen."

IMO, this answer addresses a peripheral issue--perhaps even a loophole--and I don't know if that was the original intent of the question. But now I'm curious: what if this loophole was Not a concern...


Given the above, now what would be your answer?

No, is the answer again.

By killing Hitler you become no better than he is. You are assuming his role. He killed Jews because of some kind of morality of his. He certainly didn't do it for the heck of it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Umm...Lil B, we've been through this already...under the premise that killing Hitler would prevent the Holocaust would you do it or not ?


The point to this thread is to test how far you would go to stop something evil. Arguing about whether or not Hitler was the most necessary component for the Holocaust (NOT WWI or WWII) is irrelevant.







This has been said already, but why ?


1) What lessons were learned ? You guys keep talking about it, but you never actually describe what you are trying to say...



2) And secondly, whatever these lessons are, is our knowledge of them worth and equal to the unspeakable suffering that the Holocause victims went through?



I know one thing for certain....i could care less what lesson my torment teaches nebody....i aint gonna fkn allow myself to be tormented just so someone else can learn from my pain.


I seriously doubt the Holocaust victims gave a sh*t who learned what from thier torture.

Refer to my answer above.

I would not kill Hitler for that reason, as I would be assuming his role.
Other part of the question has been answered by Bardock and Storm.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
By killing Hitler you become no better than he is. You are assuming his role. He killed Jews because of some kind of morality of his. He certainly didn't do it for the heck of it.


I actually agree with you.


Sorta...



If i had to kill him, i'd rather do it as an adult when he is guilty of and responsible for his actions...even then, i'd find it a bit hard....a *bit...



But as an infant, i couldn't do it, because:


1) He'd be defenseless

2) He'd be innocent, he didn't do anything yet

3) He would die not knowing why






But I don't agree that by killing Hitler you become just like him. There is a major difference between assassinating a global threat, and killing and torturing millions of men, women, and children.



How can you possibly logically equate killing one person with killing and torturing millions and millions of people the way he did ?



If I shot him in the head (as an adult let's just say), I still wouldn't acquire the cruelty and bloodshed he caused for nearly countless people.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Would you allow yourself and your family to be tortured for months/years then killed, so that the future generations could hopefully learn from your pain ?

No.

I'm not that moral of a person.

In the spirit of the thread question (my apologies beforehand if anyone finds this offensive)...

...pick any one of the young girls in the last few years who were kidnapped and murdered. Suppose you received a visitor from the future (real-deal, no tangents) who told you this little girl would otherwise have grown up to start WWIII. Please note, I'm not asking you to be her killer; she's already dead.

How might this change your perception of the girl and her death?

Originally posted by Mindship
In the spirit of the thread question (my apologies beforehand if anyone finds this offensive)...

...pick any one of the young girls in the last few years who were kidnapped and murdered. Suppose you received a visitor from the future (real-deal, no tangents) who told you this little girl would otherwise have grown up to start WWIII. Please note, I'm not asking you to be her killer; she's already dead.

How might this change your perception of the girl and her death?

I wouldn't she's alreadly dead.

What she might have done doesn't really matter. From my point of view (and techically from this traveler's view as well) the girl is completely innocent.

Originally posted by Mindship
In the spirit of the thread question (my apologies beforehand if anyone finds this offensive)...

...pick any one of the young girls in the last few years who were kidnapped and murdered. Suppose you received a visitor from the future (real-deal, no tangents) who told you this little girl would otherwise have grown up to start WWIII. Please note, I'm not asking you to be her killer; she's already dead.

How might this change your perception of the girl and her death?

I would say, "You are from the future?" "How does that work?" I would proceed with hundreds of questions all in that vain. I would not be concerned about some girl, because I was talking to a visitor from the future.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would say, "You are from the future?" "How does that work?" I would proceed with hundreds of questions all in that vain. I would not be concerned about some girl, because I was talking to a visitor from the future.

RLY?

If we're doing stuff like that I would just kill him and steal his tech so I could become a supervillian.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
RLY?

If we're doing stuff like that I would just kill him and steal his tech so I could become a supervillian.

You have to learn how to use the stuff first, you numb scull.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have to learn how to use the stuff first, you numb scull.

I is smarts!!

Super tech = nothing to me

: and you misspelled skull

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I is smarts!!

Super tech = nothing to me

: and you misspelled skull

If I had spelled it correctly, would you have gotten my joke?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I had spelled it correctly, would you have gotten my joke?

If you had spelled it correctly I wouldn't have been sure it was you

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you had spelled it correctly I wouldn't have been sure it was you

Well, I'm glad I lived up to that high standard.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes it is. This isn't about a history lesson. This is about how far you would go to prevent something you thnk is evil. If you do not think what Hitler did was evil, then you can easily say, "I'd do nothing, because I don't think what he did was wrong"

Why are you switching words. I did not say he wasn't wrong. I said it wasn't evil. By not condemning the man as evil, you appear to be saying that I do not think what he was wrong......meaning I think what he did was right. Poor form.



yes it is. nothing is universally evil.




because I exist in this universe I do not believe anything is evil.




the original question never mentioned anything about anybody being evil. It simply asked: "Question: Can you do it ? Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ? Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?"

I gave my answer as no. I then gave the reasons. You then went on atleast twice to post how nobody was answering the question the way you wanted it to be answered.....until page 4 when Shaky's answer met your standards. Perhaps you should work on phrasing your questions to illicit the answers you wish.





that wasn't the question you asked. I myself believe 3 million lives is more valuable than one life. This is in direct opposition to my answer to the question you actually asked.......if I would kill an infant to save millions of lives lost because of a decision that infant would make when he grew to an adult. You didn't ask which was more valuable, you asked if we would personally kill somebody for that decision that led to the deaths. I would not as it's not my place to play advocate, judge or executioner for anybody.



ok.....so you went 6 pages before getting the question out that you originally intended to ask? Next time just ask the question correctly the first time and you won't have to worry about stupid technicalities. "I'm here to know what people give more value to...the life of one human infant, or the lives of over a million people...and why..".........that pretty much summed it up. No reason for any mention of Hitler, Holocaust, a time machine.......nor any of us actually dubbing ourselves as executioner to be the one to end any life.

doh

Originally posted by Mindship
doh

I did give a real answer right after you posted actually.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I wouldn't she's alreadly dead.

What she might have done doesn't really matter. From my point of view (and techically from this traveler's view as well) the girl is completely innocent.

See

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I did give a real answer right after you posted actually.



See

Don't take Mindship wrong, he likes slapping his forehead.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Why are you switching words. I did not say he wasn't wrong. I said it wasn't evil. By not condemning the man as evil, you appear to be saying that I do not think what he was wrong......meaning I think what he did was right. Poor form.



I never insisted that you thought what he did wasn't wrong. I know you feel what he did was wrong. Why are you taking it personal ?


Don't talk to me about bad form....you are the one who stated that I was playing the role of moral judge when I condemned Hitler's actions as evil, you were directly questioning my right and reasoning for why I condemned the Holocaust as evil.

I simply answered that if a person does not feel what he did was evil, then just say so.


If you do feel what he did was evil, then you should have absolutely no problems with me claiming that what Hitler did was evil.










Originally posted by Evil Dead
yes it is. nothing is universally evil.


How do you know ?



You're statement that nothing is truly evil is just as unsupported as my claim that some things are truly evil.






Originally posted by Evil Dead
because I exist in this universe I do not believe anything is evil.


Beleiving is not the same thing as knowing







Originally posted by Evil Dead
the original question never mentioned anything about anybody being evil. It simply asked: "Question: Can you do it ? Would you kill the baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust from ever happening ? Is killing one infant worth saving millions of lives ?"



Yes, so what exactly is the problem ?




Originally posted by Evil Dead
I gave my answer as no. I then gave the reasons. You then went on atleast twice to post how nobody was answering the question the way you wanted it to be answered.....until page 4 when Shaky's answer met your standards. Perhaps you should work on phrasing your questions to illicit the answers you wish.



Umm...you didn't read my statement correctly.


I clearly stated that I thought most of the people were full of shit...i didn't say YOU were, or ne one else.


Any answers arguing that Hitler was not directly responsible for the Holocaust was OFF TOPIC...that's not the discussion here. The discussion is what YOU WOULD DO given the situation.



I had no problem with your actual answer, so what are you bitching about now ?








Originally posted by Evil Dead
that wasn't the question you asked. I myself believe 3 million lives is more valuable than one life. This is in direct opposition to my answer to the question you actually asked.......if I would kill an infant to save millions of lives lost because of a decision that infant would make when he grew to an adult. You didn't ask which was more valuable, you asked if we would personally kill somebody for that decision that led to the deaths. I would not as it's not my place to play advocate, judge or executioner for anybody.




that's fine...neither would I .....


What's the problem ?









Originally posted by Evil Dead
ok.....so you went 6 pages before getting the question out that you originally intended to ask? Next time just ask the question correctly the first time and you won't have to worry about stupid technicalities. "I'm here to know what people give more value to...the life of one human infant, or the lives of over a million people...and why..".........that pretty much summed it up. No reason for any mention of Hitler, Holocaust, a time machine.......nor any of us actually dubbing ourselves as executioner to be the one to end any life.


No



On the FIRST PAGE i made it CLEAR what the question actually was right after Adam Poe clarified:


UNDER THE PRESUMPTION THAT KILLING HITLER WOULD PREVENT THE HOLOCAUST...



I chose Hitler because he is the most hated figure in History, and the Holocaust is so far the greatest crime against Humanity.



You don't have to agree with me that Hitler was the most evil, or that the Holocaust was pure evil.



All I am asking is that if given the chance to kill Hitler as an infant in order to prevent the Holocaust, would you do it ? Yes or No...



I don't see where the problems would arise from this.

1.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes it is. This isn't about a history lesson. This is about how far you would go to prevent something you thnk is evil. If you do not think what Hitler did was evil, then you can easily say, "I'd do nothing, because I don't think what he did was wrong"

then you just posted...





2. for something to be universal, it must be accepted by all (common use) or fact supported by evidence, data.

I know that I do not think anything is evil, therefore it cannot be universally true in the common use of the word. Since "evil" is an abstract, a thought, a feeling......it has no basis at all in the physical world of facts and evidence.



correct. You are discussing a thought. A thought I said was not universal.....you disagree. If I (a member of this universe) do not share a thought it cannot be universal.

3.

I quoted you in the first quote box of this thread. Read the part in bold.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I did give a real answer right after you posted actually.

See
I know, but it was more fun responding to the silly one.
However (now I gotta respond to the real one, jeez)...

Assume for the sake of this discussion that the info from the future is entirely reliable: It Will Happen. If not killed, this girl Would Definitely have ushered in WWIII (if it were to happen in, say, 30 years, you would certainly be affected). It's as absolute as Hitler growing up to become the dictator/slaughterer he becomes. Your/Our perception of the girl's innocence is a reflection of your/our limited time perception, just as Baby Hitler would be "innocent" to those of his time frame.

I would further state that, just as we see the Bigger Picture involving Hitler and therefore might feel entirely justified in killing him (again, no "but we don't know the consequences" in this thought experiment), this would be the POV of the time traveler informing you about the little girl.

It was a mosquito, dammit.

I wouldn't kill baby Hitler for 1 simple reason.

Everything happens for a reason. If I stop Hitler, I myself may not exist. Nothing we know today may exist.

Originally posted by King Nothing
I wouldn't kill baby Hitler for 1 simple reason.

Everything happens for a reason. If I stop Hitler, I myself may not exist. Nothing we know today may exist.



1) How do you know everything happens for a reason?


How do you know Life isn't random ?




2) How would killing Hitler result in our non existance ?

- Germany may have had a different leader........who made decsions to win the war or atleast extend it to the point where his, mine or your grandparents were killed before ever procreating.......which would have prevented us from ever being born.

there's no limit to the possibilities.........that's just the first one that popped up.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) How would killing Hitler result in our non existance ?

Alteration of personalites due to differing life experience, people surviving who shouldn't have, people dying who shouldn't have, individuals never meeting . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Alteration of personalites due to differing life experience, people surviving who shouldn't have, people dying who shouldn't have, individuals never meeting . . .


It seems to subscribe to the Chaos Theory




Killing Hitler in no way ensures your non-existance. Perhaps some people wouldn't exist as a result, but so many others would exist as a result.



Either way, the human race and the world wouldn't "cease to be" just because one event was changed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It seems to subscribe to the Chaos Theory




Killing Hitler in no way ensures your non-existance. Perhaps some people wouldn't exist as a result, but so many others would exist as a result.



Either way, the human race and the world wouldn't "cease to be" just because one event was changed.

No, but I most likely would....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It seems to subscribe to the Chaos Theory




Killing Hitler in no way ensures your non-existance. Perhaps some people wouldn't exist as a result, but so many others would exist as a result.



Either way, the human race and the world wouldn't "cease to be" just because one event was changed.

Whatever happens. If u believe, all is granted. Some don't. Others worry. I live

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, but I most likely would....



How is that a bad thing ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How is that a bad thing ? Then again, most people nowadays probably wouldn't
A very minimal change might already let another sperm reach your mommies ovaries first. And World War 2 is a really ****ing big thing to change.