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.
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.
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.
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.