Given a chance would you kill baby Hitler?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll answer your post fully when I get home tonight, but until then, I'll just point out that you're supporting a present -tense claim with old history.

I know that our recent history has been plagued by shitty foreign policy. But your claim needs to be supported with comparative data.

Otherwise, it's simply shoddy thinking ... business as usual for you, as I've come to learn.

[Edwardo Piet]

No. I don't think I would be able to bring myself to murder an innocent baby, for crimes it did not commit.

This. It's never ok to directly kill a baby.

Or indirectly for that matter.

[brewer]

What about indirectly killing babies? Can you knowingly indirectly kill a baby?

If a woman is pregnant but has cancer and undergoes chemo even though her baby may die as an unintended side effect of chemo... I'd say that's one example of a grey area/indirectly killing a baby. Totally different from the nature/context of this question though, which insinuates a direct killing.

Hi CL!

I was just asking the question, not just to you but to all here. Don't want to get into a fetal death issue. Lets just stick to post birth healthy baby.

Yeah, the thread is about intentionally/directly killing baby Hitler. I'll stipulate that babies can suffer an unintended death, i.e. accident. The only indirect way I can think of to knowingly kill would be through neglect (or something similar). But, there are better (maybe more twisted) minds here than mine. That's why I asked.

[Edwardo Piet]

Intentions matter regardless of whether it's through direct or indirect means. And even if entirely accidental, it's still a tragedy from a consequential perspective when a baby dies.

Of course, like I said though, when it comes to ethics: Intentions matter.

[vorlon13]

Maybe I should dress up like Mohammad and torment baby Hitler, and then the Holocaust will be against the fucking Islamitic hordes

[Edwardo Piet]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Jeb Bush says, Hell Yeah I Would. Ya gotta step up man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-...1d3071da54

So, if time travel were possible and you were given the chance to kill baby Hitler (or any other human you find comparable) would you?

The baby that grew up to be King Leopold II of Belgium would be toast.  He was a couple times worse than Hitler was.

[IATIA]

Intentions matter regardless of whether it's through direct or indirect means. And even if entirely accidental, it's still a tragedy from a consequential perspective when a baby dies.

Of course, like I said though, when it comes to ethics: Intentions matter.

Apply that line of thought to the "trolley problem".  Noting is that simple. All we can shoot for is the greater good.

[Aractus]

I'll answer your post fully when I get home tonight, but until then, I'll just point out that you're supporting a present -tense claim with old history.

I know that our recent history has been plagued by shitty foreign policy. But your claim needs to be supported with comparative data.

Otherwise, it's simply shoddy thinking ... business as usual for you, as I've come to learn.

In the End of Year Survey 2013 (by Worldwide Independent Network of Market Research & Gallup), respondents from 65 countries considered the USA as the greatest threat to world peace, ahead of Pakistan and China -link.

[abaris]

You know the saying, "no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy."  I have to go look this stuff up.  It's been too long since I read Collapse of the Third Republic.

The so called "Sichelschnitt" certainly sruvived contact. It worked even better than Manstein had expected. Actually, it worked so well that Hitler, for some reason, stopped the advance to the coast. It's still up for debate why he did it, but it was his first direct involvement in military decisions and the first big tactical mistake. Dunkirchen wouldn't have been possible if the military had had their way.