Forum Thread
by member
Poll: Would You Kill Baby Hitler? (472 votes)
  Posts  
Would You Kill Baby Hitler? (Forums : Cosmos : Would You Kill Baby Hitler?) Post Reply
Thread Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Oct 25 2011, 10:05am Anchor

I would not kill him; in stead I would kidnap him, take him to this time, and give him to an ophanage or something.
Then I'd go to the future to see if he screwed anything up for our time, and if he didn't I'd let him live, if he did, I'd kill him as an infant.
Hurray for time machines.

SuaerBricker
SuaerBricker Listen to me!!
Feb 22 2012, 4:10pm Anchor

People who vote yes have either a bad sense of justice and morality or are just plain angry against him.
You CANT kill him because he's innocent.  So, it's right to kill somebody who has done nothing?

--

No lo soñe!!!

rue
rue
Feb 22 2012, 4:22pm Anchor

I would wait till baby Hitler was grown up, in his 20's when he was a pursuing artist and help/convince him to become the artist he could have become. Could you imagine the infamous Adolf Hitler, nothing more than a just a happy austrian painter?

Edited by: rue

SuaerBricker
SuaerBricker Listen to me!!
Feb 22 2012, 5:22pm Anchor

I dont know man....sooner or later someone else would have popped up....it was a cuestion of time, not of people....remember germany was angry with the Treaty of Versailles and the population was spliting into extreme left wing or extreme right wing.

--

No lo soñe!!!

Feb 22 2012, 6:02pm Anchor

lol if you kill him youd alter history bigtime, and since thats impossible by default (so is time travel, no matter how much one enjoys Dt Who episodes) the whole "concept" of historychanging is debunct

501stcaptainrex
501stcaptainrex FOC expert mapper and ultraconservative freak
Feb 22 2012, 6:44pm Anchor

Kill baby Hitler? If you do that you could alter the course of time therefore perhaps making a more powerful even worse dictator come to power and take over the world. My answer is NO!

--

Life is like a video game; there's players and npcs.

Ambient_Malice
Ambient_Malice Ultraconservative Hippie Freak
Feb 22 2012, 6:51pm Anchor

Talk about bumping: this thread's been idle for months.

Killing babies is wrong. Nuff said.
Just because a baby MIGHT grow up to be the most famous symbol of genocide in history, doesn't mean he WILL. The mere presence of external forces in the form of YOU might have startling effects on future events.

War is hell, but we need to examine why wars happen. I could quote the Bible passage which explains in detail, but I'm too lazy to write it out at the moment. Wars happen because people want something which they can't have. Land, resources, laws; sometimes two sides want mutually exclusive outcomes, and war is inevitable.

Sadly, some problems can only be solved by killing those who disagree. In the old days, people would exile themselves to far-off lands so they could set up their own society. Nowdays, these people fight over the existing society, trying to mold it to conform to their own ideals.

My point? Peace is an illusion in the absence of singular unifying forces such as politics, patriotism, or religion. The wars get driven underground, until they finally erupt in real-world violence. Baby Hitlers are being born every day.

But I've rambled too long.

--

Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?
-Peter Hitchens

JigsawPieces
JigsawPieces Shut up, that's why.
Feb 22 2012, 8:31pm Anchor

The holocaust and WW2 still could've easily happened without Hitler. He's a very distinctive figurehead and people have latched onto that, but he didn't orchestrate everything. He had a lot of people working with him in addition to a multitude of events that shaped his views and actions. Given the Treaty of Versailles and Germany's already poor relationship with other European powers at the time it's not hard to see how WW2 could've played out similarly. Likewise, the dehumanising of the Jews began long before WW2 - anti-Semitism, eugenics and notions of racial superiority were all popular in Europe and the West at large; sentiments that ultimately allowed something like the holocaust to take place.

Ambient_Malice wrote:
Killing babies is wrong. Nuff said.


I'd much rather overdose a baby on anaesthesia than allow it to be experimented on by Joseph Mengele. Of course, I'd prefer to help it escape or kill Mengele, but I'm pretty sure you can think of circumstances where neither would be possible. It goes without saying I'd only do this if I knew Mengele planned on killing the baby after experimentation. An unyielding rule like 'X is always wrong no matter what' can sometimes end up enabling a greater atrocity than the one it's trying to prevent.

Edited by: JigsawPieces

Ambient_Malice
Ambient_Malice Ultraconservative Hippie Freak
Feb 22 2012, 10:39pm Anchor

Well, that's the issue of situational ethics. Lying is wrong, but is lying to save the lives of others wrong? I would argue not.

Maybe my statement was misconstructed. Baby Hitler has yet to develop even the character traits which will define him as Hitler. The issue of killing a baby to prevent 'potential catastrophe' is hideously thorny.

--

Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?
-Peter Hitchens

SuaerBricker
SuaerBricker Listen to me!!
Feb 23 2012, 9:40am Anchor

Someone wrote:Lying is wrong, but is lying to save the lives of others wrong? I would argue not.

While I was studying for a year in a Catholic school, I recall one of the Religion teachers telling us what "evil" was....in short, there was a scale of values, in if you took one and placed it over another, then you would be doing wrong things (For example, personal pleasure or satisfaction was below No Killing, if somebody (say, a serial killer who kills for satisfaction or someone who do its for money) puts it above No Killing, then he would be making wrong.

Pretty interesting indeed, but the problem was....How do I get to know the scale :/ ? 

--

No lo soñe!!!

Ambient_Malice
Ambient_Malice Ultraconservative Hippie Freak
Feb 23 2012, 6:30pm Anchor
SuaerBricker wrote:
Someone wrote:Lying is wrong, but is lying to save the lives of others wrong? I would argue not.

While I was studying for a year in a Catholic school, I recall one of the Religion teachers telling us what "evil" was....in short, there was a scale of values, in if you took one and placed it over another, then you would be doing wrong things (For example, personal pleasure or satisfaction was below No Killing, if somebody (say, a serial killer who kills for satisfaction or someone who do its for money) puts it above No Killing, then he would be making wrong.

Pretty interesting indeed, but the problem was....How do I get to know the scale :/ ? 


Not to be overly critical sir, but Catholicism has some seriously muddled ideas about good and evil. They took what was once clean cut right and wrong and turned it into a complicated chart of 'real' sins and 'minor' sins. Both of which are absolved by visiting a priest.

I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer could teach us a few things here.

--

Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?
-Peter Hitchens

Feb 24 2012, 10:25am Anchor

catholicism makes the fatal flaw of categorizing everything in two groups - Evil and Good, ie Black and White, whereas most things tend to be Grey, ie somewhere inbetween, granted tho that Hilter could prob be argued to be pretty much "only" Evil, but, and this is a big but, if he hadnt started WW2 or simply stepped down in the late 30s, most germans would have adored him, he did create 5 million jobs, he did create stability in the German economy that was realing from WW1 etc, do rem that a very very few could even imagine the Holocaust and Einsatzgruppen etc atrocities that came with WW2; he was a very idolized and beloved leader among the germans, but anyhow im getting slightly offtopic so ill quit :) But ill finish with a lil mindboggler -
Hitler or Stalin, whos the most evil? Hitler killed less people but was more systematic than Stalin, whereas he (Stalin) killed many many more but much less organized than Adolf (altho he had advanced plans of "dealing with our jews" as he called it shortly before his death in 1953)

Mar 1 2012, 2:58pm Anchor

Kill no, kidnap yes. Raise in a Jewish household for irony absolutely.

Mar 9 2012, 10:06pm Anchor

funny thing is, Hitler did have some fairly close jewish friends while living in Vienna ^^

Mar 11 2012, 8:15am Anchor

We've all played Red Alert, killing Hitler before WWII is a BAD idea.

Mar 12 2012, 5:15pm Anchor

The Allies did have serious plans in killing Hitler (named Operation Foxley), one of those plans included a cpl of SOE agents parachuting closeby to Berchtesgarden, but ultimately it was decided that it was better having Hitler where he was, cuss at that time (1942 onwards) he was making such catastrophic military decisions that it would be best not to assassinate him; it would also have created a martyr of him

Mar 17 2012, 2:35pm Anchor
formerlyknownasMrCP wrote:
However the problems with Russia would still occur, so this solution isn't 100%. The Collapse of Russia's Monarch and the rise of Communism is something that would be difficult to fix.

The Bolshevics slaughtered the Russian monarchy and in the process killing between 72-110 MILLION people.

Mar 23 2012, 9:33pm Anchor

put simply, butterfly affect. dont mess with something that could have a large impact. and hitler wasnt evil, he just wasnt raised well enough and probably had some traumatic stuff. keep the baby and raise it properly. killing a child is not necessary. who knows, that baby could grow to cure cancer.

Mar 25 2012, 9:34am Anchor

instead of killing him, i would support him and aid him, until the time is right i would overthrow hitler en declair my self as empror of earth 
me with my laptop of all battleplans from the war, enamy bases, weapon tech, divisions, suplie's, medical care, civil tech, enamy spy's i would win the war
might even develop nuclear weapons ontime, once i won the war, i focus going into space, colonizing all the planets in our solarsystem

Edited by: morgoth[BHdev]

Mar 25 2012, 1:51pm Anchor

teach the baby racial equality.

Jul 29 2012, 3:46am Anchor

I would raise him as my own and teach him to be good. But I would make sure that when he was older he would grow that awesome mustache.

Reqieumthefallen
Reqieumthefallen Whreck-wee-um!. Remember that.
Jul 29 2012, 9:55pm Anchor
934gamerguy wrote:put simply, butterfly affect. dont mess with something that could have a large impact. and hitler wasnt evil, he just wasnt raised well enough and probably had some traumatic stuff. keep the baby and raise it properly. killing a child is not necessary. who knows, that baby could grow to cure cancer.

This.

--

You know who's not got Facebook or Twitter? This guy.

Rank 119 -- only 118 more to go to reach the end bossfight...


Disclaimer -- the following below is NOT sarcasm:

Play Spec Ops: The Line. No, seriously, play it. NOW! It's probably still on sale on Amazon for crying out loud! I wish more games had balls like this game does, paired with some of the best writing, mechanics, and level design that's been seen this side of linear shooters.

Sep 3 2012, 2:46am Anchor

If you're going to kill a baby Hitler you'll need to also kill a baby Stalin too!

Skylar15
Skylar15 Some random dude
Oct 6 2012, 2:28pm Anchor

No, I would not, people would probably hate me for killing a baby, and I'd hate to mess with history.

--

WARNING: I am not responsible if this post gives you or a loved one any illness.

Oct 7 2012, 3:33pm Anchor

The actions that led to World War 2 were made by Hitler, but those reasons where mainly due to World War 1, which Hitler did not play a large role in at all. Hitler originally wished to be an artist, and was fairly talented. It was only after his country lost World War 1 and he started meeting other people with ideals of Nazism that he took over the polticial ideal and eventually Germany as a whole. So no, I would not kill him. I'd just stop World War 1 from happening instead, lol!

Reply to Thread
click to sign in and post

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.