Topic Split

Post Reply New Topic

There is nothing irrelevant about pointing to the government mechanisms of a totalitarian state. Examples of viciousness don't go out of style like haircuts and women's fashions. The many official acts by the G.W.Bush administration against civil liberties go directly back to any of the totalitarian states including Hitler's and Stalin's and it's important to be aware of this.

Straw man is a fallacy too. ¬¬

I like the phrase "Hitler ate sugar!"

Your points leave a lot of assumptions open.

"This person had little or no regard for human life and tried this.
You tried this, therefore you have little to no regard for human life."

Would be more what number 4 should be the way you wrote it.

But in the case of euthanasia it isn't always the same reasoning.

I think flipped around it is OK:

This person did something bad because of this view.
You hold this view, therefore you might do something bad.

Assuming you really do have the exact same views as someone else, it is likely (or maybe even definite) you will do the same as them.

Boy, you're about as much fun as Sean Penn at the Oscars...

Seriously, Godwin's law is just a funny net culture thing meant to encourage originality, not sweep history under the rug or some other such nefarious purpose. If anything, it could be argued that the over use of Hitler/Nazi comparisons could over time rob that dark time of it's impact, let's call it "Nazi Fatigue" (not to be confused with the History channel), and do more to numb people to what actually happened more than any silly net custom could. Think of it like crying wolf, if everyone does it every time politics don't go the way they think they should, by the time someone actually starts rounding up people as national scapegoats the citizenry at large might collectively shrug and say "let me guess, just like you know who...".

Since I was in the US army from 1944 to he end of WWII I might have a somewhat different perspective on the nature of fun. There are certain constants in human social directions and the huge slide towards totalitarianism in the practices of the US government during the recent administrations are, to say the least quite disturbing and not to be brushed off by casual acceptance of current brutality. When there are wolves, it's time to cry wolf. The methods used to frighten people and allay their sensitivities are directly in line with previous totalitarian takeovers and to say it is unfashionable to be alerted to the dangers is one of the most knuckle-headed comments I have come across.

The Godwin law is the recognition of a debate fallacy, not a joke* or trying to ignore/cheapen the warning from history that is Nazism. If anything it seeks to stop people who cheapen the warning of WW2, like Unorthodox said, they're crying wolf.

*though sometimes the sheer stupidity of people who make arguments on that fallacy can be funny

Mike Godwin is [removed - M.]

Indeed.

As I pointed out, the methods of taking a country into totalitarianism are classically displayed by the development of Nazism and when the policies of a government display those tendencies it is not only right and proper to compare them to the the emplacement of Nazism, it is a clear warning that the cry of wolf is not a false warning. That the idiotic dismissal of such a dire warning by citing Godwin should be accepted as a legitimate comment is a silly attempt to throw the genuine unease into disarray and misdirect the concern.

So you got your sense of humor shot off in the war? That sucks...

Why, not at all. Your silliness is very amusing.

Topic Split topic (of course! )

Reducing all political arguments to hitler is reductio ad nauseum, and ad absurdium,

This topic is now splintered, Godwinized, and strawmanured.

Then God always wins, eh?

Oh boy! a thread about Godwin's law!

I've always had several problems with the law. Hitler comes up in debate for several reasons:

1. everyone agrees he was evil.

If I used Andrew Jackson, Sigmund Freud, or Phillup Pullman as an example of evil in a debate, someone would deny wether or not they where evil. thus the debate wold cease to be about good and evil and be about wether or not person X was evil. Similarly, If someone else used Hernando Cortez or the mongols as an example of evil, I would immediately contest that. Neo-Nazis aside, humanity has come to the consensus that Hitler was an evil man. nobody will derail the debate into a discussion about wether or not Hitler was actually a bad guy.

2. His actions and motivations are well-known.

everybody knows what Hitler did, and why he did it. Figures like Stalin and Nero are lesser known in both what their vllinous acts where and, more importantly, why they carried out those acts.

3. His actions and motivations are relevant in many topics.

Hitler's motivations and actions will be relevant in many discussions. Caligula was a bad guy, but his reasons for being evil will be less relevant in most discussions. Furthermore, as Caligula was ultimately stopped by his own people, he loses the dictator element that Hitler has, making Hitler a better example for an argument about tyrannical government than Caligula, which is his main selling point.

So there are many logical reasons why Hitler is invoked so commonly in internet debate even though there are numerous other examples of real-world evil. For these reasons I would not lend Godwin's law any merit.