Posted on 11/09/2015 1:09:16 PM PST by jimbo123
So this is the world we live in now. Asked by the Huffington Post whether he would go back in time and kill baby Hitler, Jeb Bush said, "Hell yeah, I would! You gotta step up, man."
But do you? Should you?
Given certain assumptions, killing baby Hitler isn't a hard question. Assume that going back in time merely eliminates Hitler, and that the sole effect of that is that the Nazi Party lacks a charismatic leader and never takes power in Germany, and World War II and the Holocaust are averted, and nothing worse than World War II transpires in this alternate reality, and there are no unintended negative consequences of time travel. Then the question is reduced to, "Is it ethical to kill one person to save 40-plus million people?" That's pretty easy. You don't have to be a die-hard utilitarian to think one baby is an acceptable price to pay to save tens of millions of lives.
But, of course, those assumptions are strong. Too strong. Here are just a few of the issues you'd need to sort out before even starting to intelligently consider whether killing baby Hitler would be wise.
Can time travel actually change history?
The first question here is whether backward time travel is actually functionally possible. This is a different question from whether it's technically possible. It seems quite plausible that backward time travel could exist but that it would be impossible to actually change the course of history using it. This is how time travel is depicted in movies like 12 Monkeys or The Terminator, where, in my colleague Matt Yglesias's words, "temporal jumping simply turns out to be a feature of a universe that is nonetheless an unchanging four-dimensional block."
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
First of all, IF time travel were possible, rather than change history, killing Hitler as a baby would most likely have simply produced an additional, alternate timeline (branching off from our own), one in which Hitler did not exist, however the dynamics of post World War I Germany might still have produced a Fuehrer, but one with a different name.
However OUR timeline would remain unchanged and history would not be altered.
In the same vein, if someone were able to go back in time and encourage Hitler to become a Catholic priest instead of being influenced by his anti-clerical father) it would be the height of ironies if in *that* alternate timeline, Father Hitler became instrumental in saving hundreds of thousands of Jews from the anti-Semitic Nazi regime which he would (as a man of God) rightly condemn.
The fact is, even if the technology is ever perfected, we will discover that time is absolute, in that in OUR timeline, what is past is past, and what is done is done.
Best to focus our efforts on how to build a better future, a future without the modern Communist (’RAT) Party, liberals, RINOs, and of course: stupid media so-called reporters who ask insane questions like this.
He also likes starving women. This guy is a keeper. /s
Jeb is as dumb as Babs Boxer : )
Most likely that name would have been "Ernst Thalmann."
Correct.
Of course here’s what would have been interesting. Thalmann, was loyal to Moscow, but I question if a Communist Germany would have been happy taking orders from Moscow, or would they have tried to wrestle leadership of the world Communist movement from Moscow, and if so, would there still have been war between Germany and Russia?
Jeb Bush needs to learn to say, “Next question...”
In 4 out 5 opportunities to stick his foot in his mouth, Jeb managed 2 feet in his mouth on 6 occasions.
Stupid question.
Is the baby going to be a Hitler or an Einstein?
As useful as knowing Jeb’s fantasy football picks.
“Best to focus our efforts on how to build a better future, a future without the modern Communist (âRAT) Party, liberals, RINOs, and of course: stupid media so-called reporters who ask insane questions like this.”
I LIKE this future.
Finally Yeb! is getting to the important issues that protect freedom and guide American policy. Issues like time travel, what if scenarios, Adolf Hitler and baby assassinations.
And if I could pick one person I could go back and kill in hindsight, I would make the case for Karl Marx.
Why are we seeing Republicans asked inane questions by the media, but never see Democrats asked such questions?
Why answer such a question at all? Let’s continue to see Republicans take the offensive at stupid questions, as was done at the recent CNBC debate. Questions such as this have no bearing on people’s policy positions, or what someone would do as president.
First Politico lies in order to paint Carson as a liar, and now the HuffPo asks an idiotic question to make Yeb look like an idiot. This election cycle has no shortage of dumbassery to go around.
Where were you?!
“He’s a Carp.”
Reverse the a and r and you have it right!
Because Democrats would just say, “That’s a stupid question.” Which is what Bush should have said.
But that’s why the GOP is the “Stupid Party.”
Oh my.
Change Hitler’s parents, or his WW1 experience, and he wouldn’t have turned out the same. But killing babies is so much easier I guess. I hear you can even make a few bucks for the parts.
This is the stupidest question and the stupidest answer ever. I could run a better campaign than Jeb Bush.
I certainly cannot see him killing a baby. Under any circumstances. My dad, who was born in 1912 was known to say that even Hitler was a baby once and his mother must have loved him. My father didn’t have a lot of education but he was very intelligent and a deep thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.