It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would you do if you 'knew'?

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by undo
 


But if I only change history for me by taking action, then by definition everyone else around me would still think that Hitler existed, while I don't. The conclusion I must draw from that is that the whole Universe exists for me and I know thats not true. I am but a finite miniscule cog in the scheme of things. And my reality is the same as everyone else's, whether I admit it or not.


Unless........

Have you read The Egg?

Maybe the whole universe does exist just for you.


Not to sure about that. There is only one me. I might have guises or masks that I use to get my way when I am misbehaving, but really there is only one me now and (hopefully), for evermore. Thanks for that link to The Egg.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I meant no offence . I was just pointing out the similarities




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by undo
 


There was always only one way to stop this, and that time is passing, there are other things that can be attempted, but all doomed to fail... You are free to try them all.


Having foreknowledge, means that you are already fully aware of the only options you have... In this case, it was all pretty straight forward, act to intervene in the only way that would stop him, or not.


With the fore-knowledge that you claim, and only one way to stop it, how hard can it be to end one life? If one has seen the horrible repercussions of not ending the life, then one has already lived those horrors for themself, but they have a chance of saving others from living the same horrors.

For an average person to end a life might be tough, but for someone that had already experienced 7 years in the mind of this mad man, how hard could it be to snuff him out? Especially if that same person has already been chosen in some way to receive this knowledge and have the power to take action. If they have been given this power, then they have also been given the fortitude to act.

Honestly, I'm surprised at how many people are waffling and evading the chance to act. Worries me a little bit.

My brother often brings up the saying, "Better to starve a free man, than to live as a fat slave." You'd be surprised just how often people look at him strange and ask, "why?" It is appalling how many people don't see a problem with living as a comfortable slave, as long as their personal needs are attended to. Comfort over liberty.

The answers in this thread stem from that same sentiment. Nobody wants to take personal action, they want to stand on the sidelines and hope somebody else acts.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Mouldilocks
 


yeah i get that part, the intervene or don't intervene. i'm talking about what happens when you intervene. if choice 2 is to do nothing and billions of people die, then your foreknowledge of it has served no purpose other than make you an accessory to the crime in some hypothethical way. if choice 1 is to intervene, the options/choices divide infinitely from there: kill him, don't kill him but rather maim him, don't do those things but something else, like sabotage his lab, destroy the virus, kidnap him, pray for him, tie up his hands so he can't do the deed, modify the events of the timeline in such a way that the parts leading to the use of the virus, never transpire. maybe the equipment doenst work, the electricity is shut off, good grief, there's so many options to avoid killing or being killed in that scenario.


All variables. I understand totally where you're coming from though


I am just talking about how much easier it might or might not be answer the ultimate question here, which is kill him or don't kill him. Without other options available for intervention. Like a tick in the box of the prewritten answer you give to a mutliple choice question. No drawing in an extra box to add another possibility.

I think mostly we don't/won't/can't act in terms of what is 'black and white' and what are absolutes and that the variables and disputes are the grey area inbetween. Which is why everyone is so complelled to draw in that third box...
edit on 18-9-2011 by Mouldilocks because: clariteeee, to add quote



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I meant no offence . I was just pointing out the similarities



None taken, it was an excellent find on your part, and there are similarities.

You were doing what ATS conspiracy minded members do best, and you found something that fit, that is always impressive... If it had been any closer, it would have been scary.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mouldilocks
 


that's because the third box already exists as a natural part of the question. that it isn't included is similar to test in which 3 possible answers exist but only 2 possible answers are allowed. either perry or romney. where's paul? they left him off the poll so they could control the outcome of the poll. that's what the op just did to us.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The reality IS, that throughout history man/woman has always had the opportunity to change the course of the future. Next time your child runs toward the edge of a cliff...stand idly by and comment...'well, i can't change the future..can I!'...and watch your child sail off the cliff!

Prognosticating on world events, admittedly, can be more complex than this...but luckily we have historical models to work off...what's that adage?...ignore the mistakes of the past, and you are destined to repeat them in the future...

It takes bravery and intelligence to negotiate compromising situations...whatever that situation is...

Hats off to those who have given thier life, and never been recognised, because they changed the future!

Akushla



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think what it comes down to here, is people are generally afraid of the unknown... Even if there was a way for them to have the experience themselves.

Would you want to know with absolute certainty how, when and where you will die?

We are not meant to know such things, therefore we are not meant to intervene in our own, or collective destiny.

Or so it would seem, at least in this case.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Mouldilocks
 


that's because the third box already exists as a natural part of the question. that it isn't included is similar to test in which 3 possible answers exist but only 2 possible answers are allowed. either perry or romney. where's paul? they left him off the poll so they could control the outcome of the poll. that's what the op just did to us.


I'm not disagreeing. Really, I totally see the angle you're approaching this with.

I'm only stating that the OP doesn't ask for an explanation for the answer given, or provide an option to add a third box based on our personal convictions/beliefs/theories/faith. Just to choose one of two options.

And consequently, in my very humble opinion, if we we're doing it as a collective then our personal 'stance' would be irrelevant.

That's just my opinion. Which is irrelevant



edit on 18-9-2011 by Mouldilocks because: spells

edit on 18-9-2011 by Mouldilocks because: spells, grammers



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


nahhh, you're not getting away with it by defining it as only this state of being or that state of being. lol
as long as the event has not yet occured, there are always other options. to say differently is to stack the deck in favor of a particular outcome. which you did. you corralled your audience into only 2 options when the future is not only 2 options lol COME ON! admit it.

edit on 18-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


As outlined in this thread, there is only ONE option that would have stopped this man. That time will pass completely soon...

All other options are doomed to fail... If the goal is to prevent him from executing his plan.

Have a read through the thread sometime if you are willing....

If all other options are an act in futility, and you've decided not to intervene, then that time is better spent on other things... Life goes on.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


One of the biggest misnomers is that Hitler acted alone. I really don’t think it would have made any difference friend. If anything Hitler aided the fall of Germany!

We could have confronted a Germany that was undefeatable, but thanks to Hitler we were able to lead them to slaughter. The Nazis, Hitler in particular held that a nations power lies in attack not defense, but at the end of the day blitzkrieg or not we let Hitler take more territory than he could hold. We could have fought the good fight my man, but we wanted his army’s spread thin and so we let him spread his modern undefeatable force of millions of men so wide that it was almost impossible to reinforce or resupply it etc... It is the same way the Russians kicked Napoleons ass.

The conflict with Germany was unavoidable friend with or without Hitler.


"Strength lies not in defence but in attack."
Adolf Hitler 193?
edit on 18-9-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I don't know if I would want to know or not? I have thought about that, and it sure would save a lot of wasted efforts. If I know I will die at 67.5, then Social Security isn't going to be an issue. If I know I will die at 45, then I better start maximizing every moment now. If I know I will live to be 112, then I better dam well bank some retirement funds while I can. If I knew I was going to die on a bus, then it might be a good time to start walking everywhere, LOL!

On the one hand, it does seem torturous, and it is part of the reason I oppose our current death penalty. I'm for capital punishment, but I don't like the way we delay it and administer it, and have so many last second delays, it is cruel and unusual.

On the other hand, it does make things a lot more convenient, and you can really maximize the time you have.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by undo
 


As outlined in this thread, there is only ONE option that would have stopped this man. That time will pass completely soon...

All other options are doomed to fail... If the goal is to prevent him from executing his plan.

Have a read through the thread sometime if you are willing....

If all other options are an act in futility, and you've decided not to intervene, then that time is better spent on other things... Life goes on.




no, see you're not getting it. since all possibilities exist in any potential future event, even the possibility of it not happening at all, has several variations. there's no act of futility in the future because it hasn't happened yet. all potential states of being are existing in a soup of super position, some of those potential states are not futile so you can't state they're futile and be correct. you've prejudiced the outcome by only allowing 2 conditions, the cat is either in the box or it's not. but that's not reality. the cat is both in the box and not in the box at the same time because it's in a super positional future. the moment you make your choice, then it becomes a reality. dunno what you're trying to do here, but it's a faulty test for observable future questions.

to fix the question you would have to make it an event that already happened, and talk about it retrospectively, such as "what would you have done differently?" but a future event, not the same banana.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by undo
 


But if I only change history for me by taking action, then by definition everyone else around me would still think that Hitler existed, while I don't. The conclusion I must draw from that is that the whole Universe exists for me and I know thats not true. I am but a finite miniscule cog in the scheme of things. And my reality is the same as everyone else's, whether I admit it or not.


Perhaps the question regarding Hitler was too vague in its simplicity... It was a question in the sense that you lived in a time before Hitler rose to power, and absolute foreknowledge of what he would become, what he would eventually do... would you then kill him?

It was never about time travel, only about the odd and uncontrollable ability to experience future events (out of body), with the ability later to intervene before those events take place. In this you always have two potential outcomes, and are fully aware of both, and that is your only control, you can choose to NOT intervene, as we have apparently done here, collectively.



Thank you for your reply. I got lost with others on the subject.

To respond directly to your thread, would I go back when he was still famous and lofted by the Germans for having brought Germany back from the brink of collapse ('29)? Before he set about to conquer the world? Knowing what I know now?
Yes, I would. I would wait where I knew he would pass by relatively unguarded. I would know the perfect place and time from studying photos of the era. I would pull my 9mm Luger which I stole earlier from an unsuspecting officer, I would thrust the barrel into his abdomen like Jack Ruby and empty the magazine. I should have no guilt about that, even though I would be arrested, tortured, and hung slowly from piano wire.

I would be scourged by the world, especially if I chose the Munich Olympics to carry out the act. But that would not matter, as I know the truth of where the Nazi's would wind up. I also believe that killing Hitler then would preserve the good in Germany at that time for future generations. It would be a great service to mankind.

Even after when I got to Judgment Day, I would say "if you only knew what I did, you would agree with me.", as they throw me into hell fire forever.


I am a kind, peaceful, nonviolent human being with a conscience and, therefore, I would have to blow his head off. How could I not do it and later look the victims of WWII in the eye ?

Of course , ti would be simpler to kill his dad or when he was in the womb, but, this is more interesting.

Ever read Stephen King - The Dead Zone? Your scenario is covered in his book, with the same resulting answer. Good book.
Are we looking for Manchurian Candidates? Ever see The Parallax View?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


If that were true in this case, then all of those options would have already been acted upon, with success, and without the need to facilitate a collective consensus here.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 



We are not meant to know such things, therefore we are not meant to intervene in our own, or collective destiny.


So in your OP the two extremes are explored, it is a "vision" and it will affect "millions of people." I suppose there is a sliding scale. What if it isn't a vision, but it is a direct observation of your neighbor loading up a tarp, and duct tape, and bricks into his boat, and you see him place a gun into his coat pocket, and leave the house in dark clothing and gloves, and you happen to know that his estranged girlfriend has just become engaged today and plans to take his kids off to Saudi Arabia or Timbucktoo.

Do you intervene? It is much more than a vision, but it only affects 1 person, and you have no strong duty.

Can you live with yourself is the woman is reported missing tomorrow? Worse yet, can you live with yourself if the woman, and her kids and fiance are all found chopped up somewhere?

What about your neighbor? Can you still face them?

What if you don't act, and instead of his ex-girlfriend, he winds up killing your sister, or your niece?

It seems there is some sliding scale of intervention here. I would probably intervene in all cases, but some people would only intervene if it personally affected them, and some might not intervene at all.

There is more to it than "we are not meant to know" and "we are not meant to intervene in our own destiny."

If we won't intervene in our own or collective destiny, then who will? Do we leave it to God, or the Government, or the Police, or the Neighborhood watch, or is it every man for himself, or do we just wait helplessly?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

So, in your universe everyone is really "everymany" and infinite separate realities exist for each one. Whew...

Thats a pretty complex world you have made for your self there man. Do all your others agree with all of that?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Kill him, OP!
Is this just hypothetical?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I don't know if I would want to know or not?


Exactly, and if you did know, but had the choice of self-preservation and to avoid committing an act of murder, that will also result in your own demise, it would make the decision much easier to deal with, regardless of the outcome.

You said something about it all here.

Easy to reconcile that, in this case.

You've all done well.


Thank you for participating.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join