Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
Yeah! Totally would have given him a better name than Adolph
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you adopt baby Hitler?
- Thread starter Breathe
- Start date
Yeah! Totally would have given him a better name than Adolph
You know, I'm still trying to figure out what side of the debate I'm on. While I do believe that young lives can be dramatically influenced by good parents, I almost lean towards aligning with the "nature" camp. It makes it a lot easier for me to accept that my kids didn't turn out the way I'd hoped they would.
You know something, Katzpur? If you are half as demanding of them as you are of yourself, it would be miraculous if they did measure up.
Maybe it is a matter of perspective, I don't know.
LOL! *sigh* I don't know either. All I know is that raising kids is not easy!
Well...I'd adopt him and raise him. Few reasons...
1) I'm a decent enough parent, have kids of my own, trained primary teacher. I should be able to do as good a job as any.
2) MORE IMPORTANTLY...I'm aware of who he is, or at least who he could potentially be. It's safer for the person raising him to have this knowledge, and it would be MIGHTY hard convincing someone else of the fact whilst still giving young Elijah a fair chance at life. And if the worst seemed to be possible, I could take drastic action. (erm...move to Alaska, etc...shooting him would be an epic fail if I was his adoptive parent).
As for nature vs nurture with kids, I come down firmly on the fence (less painful than it sounds). Nature seems to play a pretty important role, but I've seen people completely **** up good kids, or turn around 'bad' kids too often not to believe nurture is important. Unfortunately, 'breaking' a kid seems to take approximately 1% as long as 'fixing' one.
1) I'm a decent enough parent, have kids of my own, trained primary teacher. I should be able to do as good a job as any.
2) MORE IMPORTANTLY...I'm aware of who he is, or at least who he could potentially be. It's safer for the person raising him to have this knowledge, and it would be MIGHTY hard convincing someone else of the fact whilst still giving young Elijah a fair chance at life. And if the worst seemed to be possible, I could take drastic action. (erm...move to Alaska, etc...shooting him would be an epic fail if I was his adoptive parent).
As for nature vs nurture with kids, I come down firmly on the fence (less painful than it sounds). Nature seems to play a pretty important role, but I've seen people completely **** up good kids, or turn around 'bad' kids too often not to believe nurture is important. Unfortunately, 'breaking' a kid seems to take approximately 1% as long as 'fixing' one.
I wouldnt adopt him, mainly because I prefer not to mess with history. But also because I would be a spectacular failure in raising him . Not ready for the responsibility of parenthood yet.
EDIT:
In terms of nurture vs nature, I think both have their say. After all, some people with horrible childhoods become serial killers while others overcome their passed and become amazing people. Would say that nurture matters more, but nature definately has its say.
. Not ready for the responsibility of parenthood yet.EDIT:
In terms of nurture vs nature, I think both have their say. After all, some people with horrible childhoods become serial killers while others overcome their passed and become amazing people. Would say that nurture matters more, but nature definately has its say.
Last edited:
Galen.Iksnudnard
Active Member
There is a notion that there are some people who exist in history only because they have a specific role (good or bad) to play out. In my opinion Hitler was so fundamentally evil in the pit of his soul that he would have turned out rotten anyhow. From what I've read about his childhood, and seen on the History Channel, he was a disagreeable child and bully to the other kids growing up who got his kicks out of torturing animals.
Sure, some nurture might have changed him into a slightly less evil person, but overall I think no matter what, Hitler would still have been evil in one way or another.
Maybe one could have talked him into not going into politics, but I'm sure that given the situation in Germany at the time there would have just been another dictator and Hitler would have been in the SS anyhow.
averageJOE
zombie
I wouldn't touch him. I would tend to believe, like in the move "Time Machine", that if you go back in time nothing you do can change the course of fate. In the movie, the dude went back in time over and over again to prevent his girlfriend from dying, but no matter what he did she always died. I would tend to believe that's what going back in time would be like.
Possibly, but I think he would at least have turned out less evil
.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
LOL I was hoping somebody would post Lil Hitler the second I saw this thread. Revoltingest, you are truly a Renaissance man.