To or not to [btw, IM BACK BOYZ!!!]

[Farrowlesparrow]

Well i dont think i could just kill a man in that situation. Plus, who knows what would have happened? There was bad blood in the world and Hitler became a channel for it to be released...Dont forget, Japan was already on its imperialist conquest and Stalin was gearing up the Soviet Union to become a world power. There was a lot more going on in Europe and in fact the world than Hitler and his thugs.


Not having world war 2, would in no way make the world more "balanced", it would be balanced differently though.

Again, Japan was already on the rampage, and Russia was on its way to becoming a world power (WW2 crippled them a lot), the US would have taken much longer to come out of the depression and would likely be a lot less powerful today. Britain would probably have held onto more of its Empire because the US wouldnt have influenced them so much and the war wouldnt have drained the country...it goes on and what i have said is very blunt but i think you get the picture.

 

[Sprafa]

EVERYONE PLEASE SEE THE 1ST POST IN EXTENT.

You're all answering the "forbidden" choice.

 

[h00dlum]

hell no!! we got Adolf to thank for all good WW2 games and movies

 

[Dedalus]

Austria, 1930's.

You meet a young Art student by the name of Adolf Hitler in a "cafe".
You both ask drinks. You know what he'll do in the next remaining 20 years of his life. He will be responsible for the assasination of 10 millions. You can kill him.


[don't say you wouldn't do anything " kase everything that happened was meant to", imagine that if you did, the World would be Heaven. ]

This is a philosophical question. I wish to know the state of mind of the forum goers around here.

BTW, after a massive ban (for which I hold no hard feelings on Abom|nation, he did his job) IM BACK!!!

i would not kill hitler.

i know it seems a little silly but the opening fmv from red alert is a good example to use (i'm writing this from memory so don't flame for any little innacuracies it was almost 10 year ago!):

einstein and his spritely assistant in a lab.
einstein goes back to germany in 1938 or so.
he removes hitler from the timeline.
he arrives back sitting on the time machine.
assistant "well, did you.."
einstein "hitler...is out of the way"
assistant "wha...professor...i mean...this is incredib..-einstein raises his hand while purposefully looking at his watch, no doubt to check for any change-"
einstein "sooner or later....one of them"

so you get the idea i hope. like others have mentioned above there were quite a few countries who were teetering on the edge of war. so if it hadn't been germany, then sooner or later one of the others would have built up enough strength to go to war.

another point, hitler isn't and wasn't the only nazi alive at the time. if it hadn't been him then (yes you guessed it) sooner or later one of them...

the idea that killing hitler = paradise is such a naive perspective on the situation that you need to go smack your forehead on the pavement. the world would not be heaven. it would, however be a very different world to how it is now.

another point, although WWII took many people's lives, it also brought about thousands of inventions and methods of working that allow us to live today. what are you typing on now? computer eh? invented during the war (in manchester no less [farrowlesparrow whoops]) air travel was refined and perfected, thus today you can fly all around the world. ships and submarines were introduced, thus the advances in the military filtered down to civilian life and allowed for better ships to transport people, food and oil. there were breakthroughs in mathematics and science..national security of almost every country was looked at and re-evaluated...jobs were created for the jobless......there's a whole list of things that WWII has given us today. of course, nuclear weapons were built and used during WWII, which perhaps has had more of an influence on our lives than adolf hitler ever did. you should be asking "sitting in a cafe with einstein while he talks about inventing the nuke..do you swat him over the head and tell him what he could be unleashing".

so no. i wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Sprafa]

[don't say you wouldn't do anything " kase everything that happened was meant to", imagine that if you did, the World would be Heaven. ]

^^

please ppl, answer accordingly....

 

[Lil' Timmy]

am i to presume that my existence and actions within the past would be unaffected by the probable causality paradoxes of killing hitler? if so, i'd kill him just to see what was different.

the thing is, there a chance (impossible to calculate the odds, of course), that if hitler had been killed before the rise of the third reich, i would have never existed. seemingly, in that case, i couldn't change the timeline, because doing so would cause me never to have existed to go back in time in the first place. regardless, even if i was going to be born anyway, if hitler had not risen to power, it's highly unlikly that i would have gone back into the past to kill him, since he never did anything to warrant it in this hypothetical new timeline. so logistically, i have a suspiscion that time travel in general, and going back in time to kill hitler in particualr is a paradoxical activity that can't really happen, making the question absurd.

but enough modern popular physics contains discussions of 'quantum realities' and such that we could assume that one could remain in one's own 'reality', and killing hitler simply launched a new reality, which we could observe (but not be a part of). in that case, i'd do it just to see what happens. since it's not my timeline, i won't care much whether it's better or worse, i'd just like to conduct an experiment.

i guess we could invoke some kinda metaphysical or magical problem too. something that would place me in the past, with only one choice to make, 'kill him now or never', and i would have to live the rest of my life in the world that was created. in that case, concerns about the effect on my timeline and causality paradoxes are moot, and i'm effectively cut-off from the reality i knew as mine. therefor i'd have little sense of personal obligation to let this timeline play out in the same fashion, so again, i'd kill him just to see what happens.

i'm probably missing the point of your question though..

 

[Dedalus]

Originally Posted by Sprafa
[don't say you wouldn't do anything " kase everything that happened was meant to", imagine that if you did, the World would be Heaven.

^^

please ppl, answer accordingly....

1. what is the point of asking that if you give people an option of answering 'yes' or 'no' in the poll? you quite clearly asked in the thread title "to or not to" implies yes or no answer, thusly people answer yes or no and provide their reasons, but for some reason you keep bringing that up and i can't fathom why as it has nothing to do with the thread title.

you ask me to "imagine...the world would be heaven". well i disagree with that comment like i said in my post. if i killed hitler i believe the world would not be heaven.

 

[theGreenBunny]

Voted no, because I felt like it. Don't really take this poll seriously with all your "not allowed to answer that."
So why did I post? Dunno, felt like it.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

am i to presume that my existence and actions within the past would be unaffected by the probable causality paradoxes of killing hitler? if so, i'd kill him just to see what was different.

the thing is, there a chance (impossible to calculate the odds, of course), that if hitler had been killed before the rise of the third reich, i would have never existed. seemingly, in that case, i couldn't change the timeline, because doing so would cause me never to have existed to go back in time in the first place. regardless, even if i was going to be born anyway, if hitler had not risen to power, it's highly unlikly that i would have gone back into the past to kill him, since he never did anything to warrant it in this hypothetical new timeline. so logistically, i have a suspiscion that time travel in general, and going back in time to kill hitler in particualr is a paradoxical activity that can't really happen, making the question absurd.

but enough modern popular physics contains discussions of 'quantum realities' and such that we could assume that one could remain in one's own 'reality', and killing hitler simply launched a new reality, which we could observe (but not be a part of). in that case, i'd do it just to see what happens. since it's not my timeline, i won't care much whether it's better or worse, i'd just like to conduct an experiment.

i guess we could invoke some kinda metaphysical or magical problem too. something that would place me in the past, with only one choice to make, 'kill him now or never', and i would have to live the rest of my life in the world that was created. in that case, concerns about the effect on my timeline and causality paradoxes are moot, and i'm effectively cut-off from the reality i knew as mine. therefor i'd have little sense of personal obligation to let this timeline play out in the same fashion, so again, i'd kill him just to see what happens.

i'm probably missing the point of your question though..

Ohhh this argument has got me remembering a show I saw on channel 4 once.(this is a documentry by the way not fiction)It was about time travel and how scientists have come up with nearly flawless theories to go back in time.However it would require the combined power of multiply blackholes or a track spanning a galaxy.(Obviously impossible given our current technology)

However they did say that there is an ability to time travel in our reach,which is a virtual one.That in all probability that we in the future will have the computing power to create billions of virtual worlds,of varius time lines and situations populated by scentient AI's who would be as if they were from that time.SO there is a way to measure the effect of Hitlers murder without leaving the comfort of your home.
(Also this theory,which is very likely to be true,raises some other interesting questions about our own exsistence.Can you guess what they are? )

 

[Sprafa]

I see I must explain the point of the question so you answer accordingly.

Adolf Hitler is an example of a person that the world would benefit of his death. Therefore killing him would generally improve the world status. However, the consequences of killing Hitler are fairly complex and unpredicatble, thus many of the subjects inquired said the same thing as you all are saying now - "if Hitler died, maybe worst things could happen". I cannot disagree with this.

Therefore, I included a guideline - imagine that the world would be better if you did.

Why?
Because the consequences of your action other than the general worldwide improved is unimportant.

The point is - you can kill a man that will degrade the World. ( and I repeat - Adolf Hitler is an example! )

Do you do it, or do you consider alternatives? To say that world may not benefit from his death was dodging the point , that's why I tried to exclude that option in the beggining, however many among you refused to understand, maybe for my fault, for not explaining the point in greater detail....

 

[Shuzer]

So wait, you're asking..

Kill Hitler and the world is automatically better, or leave it the way it is.

What kinda stupid pointless question is this, exactly?

 

[Dedalus]

I see I must explain the point of the question so you answer accordingly.

Adolf Hitler is an example of a person that the world would benefit of his death. Therefore killing him would generally improve the world status. However, the consequences of killing Hitler are fairly complex and unpredicatble, thus many of the subjects inquired said the same thing as you all are saying now - "if Hitler died, maybe worst things could happen". I cannot disagree with this.

Therefore, I included a guideline - imagine that the world would be better if you did.

Why?
Because the consequences of your action other than the general worldwide improved is unimportant.

The point is - you can kill a man that will degrade the World. ( and I repeat - Adolf Hitler is an example! )

Do you do it, or do you consider alternatives? To say that world may not benefit from his death was dodging the point , that's why I tried to exclude that option in the beggining, however many among you refused to understand, maybe for my fault, for not explaining the point in greater detail....

maybe it's just me but you've put more spin on that than all of the US and UK government put together. still don't get it but my answer is still no i wouldn't kill him. i don't think you've given us your answer or have i missed it?

 

[Sprafa]

So wait, you're asking..

Kill Hitler and the world is automatically better, or leave it the way it is.

What kinda stupid pointless question is this, exactly?

kill Hitler or consider alternatives.....you were suposed to get there by yourself...

 

[Shuzer]

kill Hitler or consider alternatives.....you were suposed to get there by yourself...

Alternatives.. for what? Your question makes no sense if you say the world is a definite better place if he's killed.

 

[Sprafa]

Alternatives.. for what? Your question makes no sense if you say the world is a definite better place if he's killed.

There are alternatives to kill him... And I've said enough.

And Dedalus, I won't answer till the poll is closed (7 days)

 

[Shuzer]

There are alternatives to kill him... And I've said enough.

And Dedalus, I won't answer till the poll is closed (7 days)

But WHY look for alternatives if the world will he "heaven" if he's dead?

 

[Sprafa]

But WHY look for alternatives if the world will he "heaven" if he's dead?

Because they exist. And death is not the only answer. That's the point.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

I suppose an alternative.(If you REALLY want one)Would be to kill Himler,Goebels,Assorted SS and SA generals and officers and any active member of the Nazi party.
Then fill the power vaccum and take over Germany and use this nation to act as peace keeper to forestall the Soviets.

Well you wanted alternatives

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

I am genuenly scared by the way people don't get the reason the question was posted.


It was posted to see how easily us lot would kill for the greater good. It isnt about adolf hitler at all. That name could be replaced with Dr Evil for the difference it makes. The idea is to discover peoples morral values.


Obviously you lot lack morrality somewhat.... :rolling:

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

Who lacks morals,thoses that would kill,or those that wouldnt(I know this question shows my own skewed sense of morals but hey none of us are perfect )

 

[Jackal hit]

I am genuenly scared by the way people don't get the reason the question was posted.


It was posted to see how easily us lot would kill for the greater good. It isnt about adolf hitler at all. That name could be replaced with Dr Evil for the difference it makes. The idea is to discover peoples morral values.


Obviously you lot lack morrality somewhat.... :rolling:

agreed. well put. i tried to make this sort of thing clear in my post. he DID serve a purpose that is important to human rights struggles today. without him as a historical instance, perhaps all the human rights movements could fall upon deaf ears. i'm not gonna say everything that i think about this, that would take up quite a lot of space, and you guys would all think i'm some loony brain fried psycho. hehe... but yes blah.

 

[Sprafa]

I am genuenly scared by the way people don't get the reason the question was posted.


It was posted to see how easily us lot would kill for the greater good. It isnt about adolf hitler at all. That name could be replaced with Dr Evil for the difference it makes. The idea is to discover peoples morral values.


Obviously you lot lack morrality somewhat.... :rolling:

In a way, Harij is right.

The point is that you must change this man .
But is assassination truly the most logical path to choose? Are there alternatives?

 

[Letters]

No.

Killing is the best way.

 

[The Mullinator]

Would killing him really make things any better?

 

[Letters]

Would killing him really make things any better?

It would make it heaven!

 

[Sprafa]

It would make it heaven!

CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES!!!

please ppl i'm tired of trying to get sense into u...

 

[DimitriPopov]

I would only kill him because it'd prevent the two superpowers after WWII. Countries would be more balanced in power without being destroyed in the war, and one individually wouldn't be a big threat.

The US. Did you have the Michael Moore sig?

 

[thehunter1320]

1 life for 10,000,000..... tough choice...

wouldn't care about the consequences, 1 for 10,000,000

 

[Prince of China]

Okay, you don't know that for sure that it's 1 life for 10,000,000. Sprafa has been saying stuff like this. There are alternatives. What makes you so sure that Hitler's death is the best way? If we go back in time, kill hitler, and come back, who knows, it may be worse, maybe more than 100,000,000 people may die because of what YOU did.

 

[Letters]

Sprafa said the world is heaven if you kill him.... made a big deal about that rule... then wants you to say you don't want heaven to prove you have sense...

What
The
****

 

[Shuzer]

Sprafa said the world is heaven if you kill him.... made a big deal about that rule... then wants you to say you don't want heaven to prove you have sense...

What
The
****

My thoughts EXACTLY.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

lol, seriously.. spafra.. i understand that english probably isn'tyour first language, but that said, you're doing more to obfuscate than clarify your "question" with these posts you keep making.

in one instance you bemoan people for taking liberties with your poorly-constrained problem, then you invoke the condition that killing hitler would result in a heaven-on-earth scenario, then you admonish people for taking you at your word, and direct us to consider alternatives.. which seemed to be what was pissing you off in the first place..

look, is the state of the world after hitler has been killed a known quantity or not? ("yes" or "no"). if "yes", what is that state, 'heaven' or something else? if it's not, then how can you complain when people try to explore the consequences of this hypothetical action?

 

[Sprafa]

The point is that you must change this man .
But is assassination truly the most logical path to choose? Are there alternatives?

Because the consequences of your action other than the general worldwide improved is unimportant.

To say that world may not benefit from his death was dodging the point , that's why I tried to exclude that option in the beggining

Am I being less clear then the Wachowski Bros. to you?
I thought the answer was pretty clear.
Is there another way to get the world better not terminating his life? Yes!
Do you consider it? No.
Why? Because the easiest way is to simply kill him. I'm not going to say I got it instatntly, because when this question was posed, I also simply answered "I would kill him". After a long talk with the author of the question, I understood.

This is beggining 1930's. The subject (Hitler) is the starting to have the destructutive tendencies that will change the world. Could you consider that his ideals were not so deeply rooted, allowing you to simply, change his mind. How? intelligent debate.

America is at War. A group of soldiers is about to be ambushed, and you know that. Do you warn them?

Peter Jennings - "Yes".
Mike Wallace-"No. A journalist is not a patriot. A journalist is a journalist."
Peter Jennings (after debate ) - "You're right."

A classical example of pure intelligent debate, changing one's beliefs.

So, do you understand now?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Sprafa stop complaining about peoples answers when you posted a flawd question in the first place.

Since im not allowed to answer with what i would like...I wouldnt kill him, i would either detain him until i felt it was "safe" for him to be released. Or i would try to influence his ideology...However, it would probably be quite difficult to do the latter as by the 1930's Hitler was already getting ready to enter into power.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

no
simply because I have no need to kill anyone or anything, everything (no matter how horrid) happens for a reason.
Its best not to play God.

would I WANT to kill him? oh yes, Im human, I have compassion... it just is not my place to do so.

also, there always is something else... always someone else ready to take his place....
if we are so keen to kill HItler, why not Muscillini? or Stalin? Alqueda and Saddam, etc etc.... we cant kill all the evil in the world.

 

[Sprafa]

Sprafa stop complaining about peoples answers when you posted a flawd question in the first place.

Since im not allowed to answer with what i would like...

I'm trying to correct it. That's the point. Intelligent debate.

So you would simply killed him and get it over with...

 

[ray_MAN]

Sprafa, it's opinion. I would not kill him even if I did vote it. I would try to change his way of moral thinking.

 

[jimbones]

I'd force him to become a better painter!!

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Could you consider that his ideals were not so deeply rooted, allowing you to simply, change his mind. How? intelligent debate.

umm, that's a nice idea, but it doesn't seem likely to me at all. infact, "intelligent" debate would probably have almost no effect on a 1930s hitler at all (by '33 the thrid reich was already on the rise). if anything, brainwashing would be the best bet. but seriously, killing him would be the simplest way to eliminate his influence from the timeline. regardless of whether or not it stops ww2/holocaust/whatever, you can be certain that hitler's influence would be minimal if he's dead that early.

except through threat (backed up with serious evidence) or brainwashing, you most likely won't be able to affect hitler's thinking at this stage. core personalities are usually in place by like 8-10 yrs old. as others have said, incarceration may be a viable alternative to killing... but 'changing his mind' about jews? war? white supremacy? not going to happen through "intelligent debate".

 

[63]

stop Adolf from being born in the first place.

But she was sooooooooo easy!