Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A follow up to Godwin's law

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

25 May 2016, 6:33 pm

Edenthiel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I have come up with a new law: If in a debate a participant asserts their free speech rights, where such rights were never questioned in the debate, or asserts nonexistent rights (such as the nonexistent right to an audience or to a platform, such as a publisher), then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.


[...]More, or less, agree. But I would say it this way "the right to be heard (ie free speech) does not include the right to be taken seriously".


I think she was going for the same structure and style as Godwin or Poe. Hence the schema of,

outlandish appeal to emotion fallacy = argument forfeited

In this case it is a participant relying on the very American value of Free Speech to shut down their opponent by shaming them, but without understanding what "Freedom of Speech" actually means in a legal sense. And I agree, at that point the argument is truly lost.


That's kinda my point. You don't need to construct a complex rule to counter that kind of irrational debating opponent All you need is to remember a couple of simple phrases.



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 38
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 7:35 pm

Drake wrote:
Schlumpfikus wrote:
Well it is assuming one has lost a debate as soon as one shows oneself as being offensive, prejudiced and/or non-logical.

These are all very subjective. Which is fine when it comes to your own personal code for when you decide someone is no longer worth your time, but not when making rules for others to abide by.


Well, of course you can't actually make rules which others should abide by because this would exactly be contrary to free speech, wouldn't it? This all also has to be taken with a grain of salt, after all Godwin's law is also somewhat ironic.
I mean, are you actually asking me (because I don't think the original post is) what makes someone lose a debate?
So, I don't know much about rhetoric (I just googled 'strawman arguments' :) ) , but okay: You say yourself that when people start their sentences with 'I have nothing against, but' they get accusing reactions and suddenly are forced to not discuss what they wanted to but to defend themselves, so indeed they are losing the debate in a way, aren't they? Which just proves my point.



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 38
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 7:51 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Schlumpfikus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You know who also liked to make rules like this?

Nazis.

I rest my case. 8)


Which brings us to annoying standard-phrase number three: Not everything the Nazis did back then was bad. (Autobahn). :mrgreen:


"Nazis not so bad" - Schlumpfikus 8O

:P


Ah, beware! Being German I can take the Nazi card being thrown at me like nothing, but, aren't you a fan of this rich guy who everyone (well, ok, everyone where I live :scratch: ) finds :evil: and who'd love to throw all the Mexicans out? Guess who also would have liked that idea? :mrgreen:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 May 2016, 8:30 pm

Schlumpfikus wrote:
Ah, beware! Being German I can take the Nazi card being thrown at me like nothing, but, aren't you a fan of this rich guy who everyone (well, ok, everyone where I live :scratch: ) finds :evil: and who'd love to throw all the Mexicans out? Guess who also would have liked that idea? :mrgreen:


Trump doesn't want to 'throw out all the Mexicans' and if they're telling that to you in your media then they are lying as usual.



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 38
Posts: 79

26 May 2016, 4:59 am

No, I was just making that up, I'm actually far too little interested in US elections to know what anyone of them wants.