If you had a time machine would you go back in time and kill baby Hittler?

"

Upandatem wrote:

Spoiler

But it didn't? In a bootstrap paradox, their going back in time to kill the worst criminal of all time for shooting up the police station (and to stop him from becoming Kung Fury himself), is not only what ultimately led him to 1980's Miami in the first place, but the events shown in the aftermath strongly indicates that they might have succeeded only in making it worse.

"

erdelyii wrote:

Spoiler

XD Exactly, it totally works!

Leaving aside the crappy one-liners about causational paradox for the moment and assuming that killing Hitler 'works as intended' i.e. you kill Hitler and the world changes accordingly without blotting you from the record...

No.

As stated previously, the world learned very valuable lessons from World War 2 that it might never have learned without such a horrendous event to put those lessons so sharply into focus. Nazi Germany and Nazism in general showed us the logical end point of many philosophies and trains of thought that still worrisomely exist today. Simply imagine what might occur if Nazis had never existed to serve as a warning against the dangers of autocratism, racism, and wanton cruelty.

Erasing an event of the scale of World War II, even if it was possible, would essentially be rolling the die on a new world seed. The world you create might be better than the one you left, yay! Or it could be significantly worse because there was never a drive to be better after the horrific war that suddenly didn't happen anymore. You have absolutely no way of knowing without being able to see all possible timelines and steer them towards your desired goal, in which case we're talking apotheosis, not a time machine.

Way I see it? Better the devils we know.

"

1453R wrote:

Way I see it? Better the devils we know.

I would go back in time and run from my first wife on the night I first met her.

"

DoubleU wrote:

I would go back in time and run from my first wife on the night I first met her.

Lol that’s a good1;)

On topic I wouldn’t kill hitler cos it could fucked up my life too. But if I had a time machine I would go back to 1969 to Woodstock festival to c Jimmy Hendrix alive and other good bands and have wicked time;)

No. Hitler fought for his ideas and died for them, everyone has the right to choose right or wrong and face the consequences.

"

IIPheXII wrote:

Hitler fought for his ideas and died for them, everyone has the right to choose right or wrong and face the consequences.

Against nature, yes, you have a right to fight to the death for your ideas. Against other people, no — at least not fighting directly.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Against nature, yes, you have a right to fight to the death for your ideas. Against other people, no — at least not fighting directly.

Oh? Is man’s capacity to externalize his will—to include eradicating evil—not a self evident truth? I’m not sure how to interpret this without concluding a position that either contradicts or is ignorant of nature.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Against nature, yes, you have a right to fight to the death for your ideas. Against other people, no — at least not fighting directly.

Oh? Is man’s capacity to externalize his will—to include eradicating evil—not a self evident truth?

It isn't.

The way of the authoritarian is to fight "evil" directly. The way of the cuck is to invite it to a free dinner, as if drinking the local water will cure the disease. The forgotten way of the liberal, however, is to quarantine evil. If it truly is evil, as hypothesized, it should begin eating itself, once properly denied innocents to feed upon. On the other hand, if it thrives on its own, perhaps it wasn't so evil after all.

We are not liberal about the positions we support, but about the positions we oppose. Of course a pious evangelical will look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and say the baker has a right to refuse baking the cake; the test of her liberalism is whether she believes gay men should be protected from force that compels them not to marry. Of course a gay man looking at the same case will say they have a right to marry; the test of his liberalism is whether he believes the baker should be protected from force that compels him to serve a gay couple. Both cases of liberalism assume conditions wherein one can freely associate with like-minded folks AND freely dissociate from people who hold "evil" opinions and engage in behavior informed by those opinions. Thus: unity is liberalism's Kryptonite, while cultural fragmentation and the cornucopia of choices it offers is the yellow sun that gives it its great power.

The same is concepts apply even to illiberal political ideologies. A true liberal has no inherent problems with a group that wants to bring about a Communist Utopia or form a white ethnostate, providing two important conditions are maintained: first, that no one who isn't a voluntary participant in such experiments is there at the onset, and second, that the group of idiots wishing to perform the social experiment kindly fuck off to someplace far, far away first — and stay the fuck away. (To the Democratic Socialists of America, may I suggest emigrating to Venezuela?)

This doesn't mean that the liberal way involves zero fighting. It does mean, however, that only specific evils need to be confronted directly — those in proximity that represent a credible threat to freedom of association or dissociation. There is no need to go on some great crusade to purge foreign evils; there is only a mandate to defend The Wall from those who haven't permission to enter.