Thread 513438267

Would you kill a baby Hitler to prevent WW2?

>>513438267 (OP)
No, it's nature AND nurture faggot. Nice jap cutie. Now fuck off mah board.

>>513438267 (OP)
No because it would set back Humanity decades in technology

>>513438267 (OP)
If I could monitor how he grew up I'd kidnap him and leave him with a family in another country. See how he turns out.

>>513438267 (OP)
Why would you have to kill him? Just tell the people he's around he has the potential to become a tyrant.

>>513438267 (OP)
No. But id kill a baby FDR and a couple of stalin babies (durkashvili)

>>513438502
Queue Nazi Madagascar and their 10, 000 year Reich

>>513438267 (OP)
No, I'd kill baby beck, churchill, fdr, and stalin though.

>>513438267 (OP)
I want to ejaculate in that girl's vagina.

>>513438267 (OP)
No. I would train the little bastard for all his life to get the job done.

Or tell him everything he can do right

>>513438267 (OP)
No I don't kill babies I'm not Jewish.

>>513438267 (OP)
I would rip its limbs off one by one.

>>513438267 (OP)
Jokes aside, preventing WW2 would be bad actually.
I'm not going to do a good job of articulating this, but basically a lot of different ideas about how things should be and different ways of doing things and organizing ourselves were basically being tested.
Amongst other things, WW2 was a way to sort of sort it all out and straighten it all out, to answer questions about "What is the system we want to adopt as a species?" all in one go.

It needed to happen, and while it's bad that people died, it's good that it got sorted out then rather than say now when there's 4x as many people.

>>513438267 (OP)
yes

>>513438267 (OP)
>1 post by this ID
checked
>memeflag
checked
>unrelated attention grabbing image
checked
>unuseful topic
checked

Tell me you are a kike without telling me you are a kike.

>>513438267 (OP)
I would relentlessly tell him the story of Napoleon in Russia and explain in as much detail as I could how to make a nuclear bomb.

>>513439481
/THREAD/

>>513438267 (OP)
No but I'd kill a baby jew for laughs

>>513438267 (OP)
No, I'd kill baby Churchill to prevent WW2.

>>513438267 (OP)
I'd circumcise baby hitler

>>513438267 (OP)
Travel back in time to alter the past? No for many reasons. One is temporal causality. If you go back in time and kill Hitler then he will have never existed eliminating the need to go back in time to kill him so your timeline instantly shatters destroying your entire universe by eliminating your divergent reality as a possible outcome therefore you completely cease to exist from front and back. There is also a problem with being able to go back in time because if you can do it that means anyone can do it. This means many will do it. That means they will all manifest at the same time at the same place within the same timeline(s) at different points in time relative to that "killing window". There could be an infinite number of people from infinite timelines all going back in time so the instant manifestation of an incalculable number of physical bodies all as one coalesced mass in the same place could theoretically create an object larger than the entire universe thereby destroying all of reality OR creating an object of infinite mass greater than the mass of the universe all in one tiny point relative to the size of the universe which would cause the entire universe to collapse back in on itself instantly with such force that it would all compress into an infinitely small volume with an infinitely high mass and amount of energy and then who knows what could happen.

If we're talking about if I was a person living in the late 1800s and would I murder a baby just because since I have no way of knowing who or what this baby is or their impact on history? No I would not murder the baby.

>>513439060
like that has ever worked