|
Godwin's Law - You automatically lose when you invoke Nazis. (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
Precisely, so there's no need to invent redundant "laws" that restrict discourse. The concept of red herring, non-sequiturs, ad hominems are well established and don't need alteration or elaboration.
It's analagous to "hate crimes" and "hate speech." We already have laws dealing with violent crimes, there's no need to legislate "hate crimes" and pass new laws only to go down a slippery slope. Hopefully that cleared it up.
First of all, rephrasing it in latin doesn't make it any more intelligent. But here's a litte something about "Reductio ad Hitlerum" that's quite interseting:
| quote: | | Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern fallacy in logic. It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1950. |
I guess it should come across as a surprise that a moron like him came up with something so brilliant and redundant. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Interestingly, the probability that someone will make a comparison involving dish soap also increases as the sample of text in which it might be found expands. Therefore, by analogy, you should also carefully avoid making an inappropriate comparison to dish soap in an online discussion.
Since dish soap and Hitler are so similar in this regard, I think it is fair to assume that anyone who purchases dish soap must be a Nazi. I know I am. :disbelief |
LOL |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Precisely, so there's no need to invent redundant "laws" that restrict discourse. The concept of red herring, non-sequiturs, ad hominems are well established and don't need alteration or elaboration.
It's analagous to "hate crimes" and "hate speech." We already have laws dealing with violent crimes, there's no need to legislate "hate crimes" and pass new laws only to go down a slippery slope. Hopefully that cleared it up.
First of all, rephrasing it in latin doesn't make it any more intelligent. But here's a litte something about "Reductio ad Hitlerum" that's quite interseting:
I guess it should come across as a surprise that a moron like him came up with something so brilliant and redundant. |
Sure, it probably is just some guy trying to repackage the association fallacy...:o
But I guess it's just a specific term desribing this type of association fallacy. Citing Hitler or Nazis is a pretty widespread association fallacy, so it may be helpful to name it for future reference? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Goodwin's Law is essentially a bunch of nonsense narrowing down the framework of discourse, forcibly discluding any reasonalable comparison or parallel to the third reich. Placing further restrictions on a subject already poisoneded with cultural taboos, one must essentially ignore a pretty recent and important historical phenomenon to accept the prevelance of an asinine law like this. Yes, there are cases where the Nazi analogy is overextended or not appropriate in the first place, but to disclude anything remotely related to it is a relfection of nothing more than an inability to deal with and process analogies and parallels with simple facets of modern history. So this Goodwin guy's basically a wuss that had to make up a rule in avoidance of dealing with his own hang ups, complexes, and cultural baggage.
No, that's utter bull. What you're refering to is a tautolaugical implication. It has nothing to do with "Hitler" or "Nazis."
We Know:
If one argues from the above that A is true, that a very elementary and basic fallacy. Only someone completely unfamiliar with a tautological implication and it's truth table could make an assertion like that.
Plus you made quite a few leaps in logic there to begin with.
"Hitler supposerted A" is a single premise in itself.
"A is evil" or "A is not evil" is a logically unrelated statement with any selfevident correlation or reltiontion between the two premises.
So any freshman who's taken a formal logic 101 class can own this Goddwin clown in a matter of a few seconds.
EDIT: There's a difference between tautological equivilances and implications, in the former case that would be a legitimate inference but it's simply not the case here.
EDIT2: BTW, nothing personal Krypton. I unfortunately have a tendency snap in response to a forced limitation discourse or obfuscation of legitimate arguments. So don't take my response the wrong way buddy ;). |
Dude, stop thinking so much. They're going to start messing with YOU next.
Your answer sums it up well, btw!
Oh, and I don't really like memes to begin with, anyway :D They're usually like crappy shortcuts to thinking. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.
What is a fallacy is the Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy which states...
"""Hitler supported A. Therefore, A must be evil.""" |
A few months ago someone on here said that an argument was void because the law was brought up, err, evoked. I thought it was funny because that person might actually have been serious about it. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Um, muslims view Israel and the US as one entity. |
LOL, no, any rational person does, Muslim or not. And I know way more than I can count on both hands who do. Well, not entirely. US is Israel's proxy state that serves as a military vehicle to further Israeli interests and UN security council member to offer it immunity from international law. AIPAC pretty much runs this country and directs it's foreign policy. The "NeoCons" are mostly Zionists / Zionists Jews so that should really come across as a big surprise you know. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, no, any rational person does, Muslim or not. And I know way more than I can count on both hands who do. Well, not entirely. US is Israel's proxy state that serves as a military vehicle to further Israeli interests and UN security council member to offer it immunity from international law. AIPAC pretty much runs this country and directs it's foreign policy. The "NeoCons" are mostly Zionists / Zionists Jews so that should really come across as a big surprise you know. |
Don't forget Zionist Christians..
 |
|
|
| George Smiley |
I would like to put forward the following motion to amend Godwin's Law, which I know will enjoy the support of Lebezniatnikov:
If you use a YouTube video instead of your own, carefully thought out, argument, you automatically lose, or should said video be the opening post, with no arguments from yourself, you post shall be ignored by all |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Precisely, so there's no need to invent redundant "laws" that restrict discourse. The concept of red herring, non-sequiturs, ad hominems are well established and don't need alteration or elaboration. |
Some people will probably never understand this simple but very poignant statement. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I would like to put forward the following motion to amend Godwin's Law, which I know will enjoy the support of Lebezniatnikov:
If you use a YouTube video instead of your own, carefully thought out, argument, you automatically lose, or should said video be the opening post, with no arguments from yourself, you post shall be ignored by all |
There's really no need to further the Groupthink here.
| quote: | Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.
References (also see annotated bibliography of books, articles and websites below)
Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Second Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm |
|
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I would like to put forward the following motion to amend Godwin's Law, which I know will enjoy the support of Lebezniatnikov:
If you use a YouTube video instead of your own, carefully thought out, argument, you automatically lose, or should said video be the opening post, with no arguments from yourself, you post shall be ignored by all |
I second that motion. No videos in a debate without an explicit argument and how the video supports your point. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
There's really no need to further the Groupthink here. |
I am putting forward another motion:
All those in favour of gettin Trancer-X to stfu say aye!
Aye! |
|
|
|
|
