• Would people kill Hitler's Mother knowing that she'd give birth to dear old Adolf?
    20 replies, posted
Since the "Kill one to save a million" is a pretty much pointless discussion, other than the one reply of "unless they're a million scumbags, then yes". This one requires more thought because you would kill someone completely innocent but have the knowledge that they'd create someone who had a big impact on the history of the world. Thoughts?
You could also, like, infect her with syfilis or something. That'd take care of it.
Have you not heard of the evil baby orphanage, where instead of killing a evil person's mother, you remove her and take her somewhere else where she can't affect society.
You can never predict the consequences of an action; it is nearly always best to do the right thing on principle which would be not to kill the mother.
Well the effects that world war 2 had were poor but then again boosted the progress of science and medical care.
the world won't turn out the way you expect it, if you do!!
[QUOTE=AK'z;33187958]Well the effects that world war 2 had were poor but then again boosted the progress of science and medical care.[/QUOTE] Not that much, if half the effort going into killing people was put into helping people then the world would have been a much better place.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33187985]Not that much, if half the effort going into killing people was put into helping people then the world would have been a much better place.[/QUOTE] That's not the point, I'm saying that the technological advancements that occurred effected the world for the better thereafter. In spite of the deaths.
I'd help deliver the baby. Hitler had the right idea.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33188004]That's not the point, I'm saying that the technological advancements that occurred effected the world for the better thereafter. In spite of the deaths.[/QUOTE] Those technical advancements that happened so fast in war times, was application of what we knew in ways to kill people, take nuclear technology, we already knew that fission existed, but we concentrated on using that knowledge to kill people, when we may have ended up with nuclear reactors being made earlier if the war was not going on because we weren't trying to make bombs so hard..
Nope, and I wouldn't kill Hitler in an early age either. It was mostly the circumstances that created his personality. I would have tried changing them, rather than kill innocent people.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33188067]was application of what we knew in ways to kill people[/QUOTE] and heal.
In some senses World War 2 or something of a similar scale was bound to happen regardless of certain little details, it was inevitable and in the process of humanity working through the tragedy, we learnt how to be better because of it. It's not something I feel we are likely to repeat on the same scale.
[QUOTE=phaedon;33188080]Nope, and I wouldn't kill Hitler in an early age either. It was mostly the circumstances that created his personality. I would have tried changing them, rather than kill innocent people.[/QUOTE] You'd have your work cut out, you'd have to change a lot of variables such as the rise of Communism in Russia in order to prevent the ideas of fascism being created.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;33188170]You'd have your work cut out, you'd have to change a lot of variables such as the rise of Communism in Russia in order to prevent the ideas of fascism being created.[/QUOTE] Yeah, reading my post again it seems a bit silly. No, no theoretical time traveller would be able to change the actual circumstances, I was wrong. You'd probably have to go as early as before the French Revolution. But to be honest, I think that it wouldn't be morally acceptable to kill Hitler until after he ordered the invasion of Poland.
Nope, because I (and none of you) know the ramifications of it. Maybe it could have gone way worse than what happened in WW2. Hence why people shouldn't fuck around with time, killing a fly 100 years ago could have huge consequences today (unless the timeline splits, in which case we won't have to worry about it, only the guy that goes back will).
I would probably end up fathering Hitler if I went back there, nothx.
[QUOTE=acds;33188515]Nope, because I (and none of you) know the ramifications of it. Maybe it could have gone way worse than what happened in WW2. Hence why people shouldn't fuck around with time, killing a fly 100 years ago could have huge consequences today (unless the timeline splits, in which case we won't have to worry about it, only the guy that goes back will).[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with the butterfly effect... The hypothetical situation the OP mentions is knowing about it at the time, not going back in a time machine or anything
If someone like Hitler hadn't taken power then, it would have happened later. One way or another, the world was too naive and it took a man like Hitler to wake us up to reality. I'm just glad it happened before nukes were in everyone's hands. It will take so much more time and effort to do what Hitler did again, because now there are so many people watching and they all know what to look for. Killing his mother would be pointless and possibly even detrimental to the world.
No because a baby isn't automatically born a killer. its the life experiences and external influences that made Hitler who he was. I believe that if Adolf was born somewhere else his life could have been more peaceful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.