Baby Hitler

[trickser]

Killing people to eliminate unwanted genes is exactly Nazi ideology.

Which proves, if you are right, that you share genes with Adolf Hitler.

Or maybe stupid ideas just spread by thin air. Maybe listening to or reading them can somehow magically transplant them into your brain. Nah, thats absurd, must be evil genes.

[DTNC Vicious]

Say what you will , I'd still falcon punch baby hitler and I'd be curious to see how that changes history honestly. If that makes me evil so be it.

[UNITEDAIR]

Vic are you suggesting that evil is a genetic disposition? Having genetic traits that make you prone to violence doesn't make you evil or prone to do evil things. Plenty of people have these same genetic traits as serial killers and live normal lives. Are they evil?

[trickser]

You are not evil, your super fluffy nice. Just don't kill babys for wearing a mustage, please.

[DTNC Vicious]

Vic are you suggesting that evil is a genetic disposition? Having genetic traits that make you prone to violence doesn't make you evil or prone to do evil things. Plenty of people have these same genetic traits as serial killers and live normal lives. Are they evil?

Yes, I am suggesting evil is a genetic disposition off a few theories. And are those people you mentioned evil? Well how do you know they have the same genetic traits if they haven't committed any crime or done anything ? If you could find me some literature on that I'd love to take a look.

@Sen, fine any babies with the mustache get a pass.

[UNITEDAIR]

That's laughable Vic. Evil doesn't exist, it's just a word we describe people who do something we really rather them not do. Which makes it utterly and completely subjective based on who's saying it. And it certainly doesn't belong in any theory about biology or science for that matter. Are you suggesting that people must commit crimes in order to have these genetic traits? Criminals have propensity for gene X so anyone with gene X must be a criminal. Even you can see the error in that. I never said that genes were never important or have no factor, but it is a piece of a big picture of why humans behave why they do.

Also, what if killing Hitler made things worse and killed even more people? Would it be 'evil' for me to kill you as a baby to prevent you from killing Hitler to prevent even more deaths? Do you see how silly it is to discuss this? All in good humor.

[SLO - 101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5JAHvsJVKM

They exterminated them becasue they knew to mutch.

[DTNC Vicious]

Also, what if killing Hitler made things worse and killed even more people? Would it be 'evil' for me to kill you as a baby to prevent you from killing Hitler to prevent even more deaths? Do you see how silly it is to discuss this? All in good humor.

Yes, it would be evil of you to do that because then we would not have this thread.

[atomic oracle]

I wouldn't go back in time and kill you, if I did that then I might have to play someone that has a chance of beating me

[Endless]

The old unwritten rule of (American) law enforcement is that you as a person do not prevent crimes from happening; you enforce the law. You can't punish someone for something that hasn't happened. So no I wouldn't kill hitler.


The other end of that unwritten rule is that your entity (agency or department) prevents the crime. So in essence the fear of the law prevents you from committing the crime. I think that if an entity such as America was more of an enforcer before the events of WW2, a lot of the crimes by hitler, mousolini(sp?), Japan, etc.. May not have happened.

[kudayta]

The other end of that unwritten rule is that your entity (agency or department) prevents the crime. So in essence the fear of the law prevents you from committing the crime. I think that if an entity such as America was more of an enforcer before the events of WW2, a lot of the crimes by hitler, mousolini(sp?), Japan, etc.. May not have happened.

The deterrence argument strikes me as dubious at best, since all we seem to have to support it is anecdotal evidence. But even assuming it is accurate, prior to about the end of WWII, it just wasn't technologically feasible for any nation to be a global enforcer. The Brits ran a global empire in the Age of Sail and Industrial Revolution, but they had a hard time with local insurrections and the French throughout the period. There was just too much lag in communication to properly enforce their rule of law.

[Endless]

The other end of that unwritten rule is that your entity (agency or department) prevents the crime. So in essence the fear of the law prevents you from committing the crime. I think that if an entity such as America was more of an enforcer before the events of WW2, a lot of the crimes by hitler, mousolini(sp?), Japan, etc.. May not have happened.

The deterrence argument strikes me as dubious at best, since all we seem to have to support it is anecdotal evidence. But even assuming it is accurate, prior to about the end of WWII, it just wasn't technologically feasible for any nation to be a global enforcer. The Brits ran a global empire in the Age of Sail and Industrial Revolution, but they had a hard time with local insurrections and the French throughout the period. There was just too much lag in communication to properly enforce their rule of law.

Right. Say America is the global enforcer in those times and hitler decides to not do the whole holocaust thing. Who's to say there wouldn't be another usurper to take his place. Or maybe FDR would have been that alternate reality's hitler.

[kudayta]

The other end of that unwritten rule is that your entity (agency or department) prevents the crime. So in essence the fear of the law prevents you from committing the crime. I think that if an entity such as America was more of an enforcer before the events of WW2, a lot of the crimes by hitler, mousolini(sp?), Japan, etc.. May not have happened.

The deterrence argument strikes me as dubious at best, since all we seem to have to support it is anecdotal evidence. But even assuming it is accurate, prior to about the end of WWII, it just wasn't technologically feasible for any nation to be a global enforcer. The Brits ran a global empire in the Age of Sail and Industrial Revolution, but they had a hard time with local insurrections and the French throughout the period. There was just too much lag in communication to properly enforce their rule of law.

Right. Say America is the global enforcer in those times and hitler decides to not do the whole holocaust thing. Who's to say there wouldn't be another usurper to take his place. Or maybe FDR would have been that alternate reality's hitler.

Well, in defense of Hitler: He did kill Hitler.

[Endless]

Part of me thinks that hitler killing himself was an ego trip. "I'll show those Allies how it's done."

[Lord_Haw_Haw]

I am very late to reply to this, Any changes to the time line with the killing of baby AH would be regarded as a threat to the national security of the United States and Israel and Germany and would be seen as a terrorist act, these three countries would be the most affected or perhaps one of them might not exist at all.

Having said that, if the goal was preventing the Holocaust, rather then taking a life, I would try to get Frederick William IV of Prussia to accept the offer of the crown of Germany in 1849, If it meant telling him every terrible thing that might or might not come about. Germany might have changed for the better if the 1848 revolution had succeed. The only other thing I can think of again without taking a life might be to prevent the future Kaiser Frederick III from smoking and thus giving him a longer lifespan in the hopes he would be able to change the German Second Reich.


LHH