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

Topic Split

Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

10 Feb 2010, 11:29 am

Don't forget Godwin...;)


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Feb 2010, 11:39 am

pakled wrote:
Don't forget Godwin...;)


Hitler and the German nation under Nazism is an outstanding example of human stupidity and brutality and mentioning it in the proper context is a very significant and worthwhile point. Because some guy named Godwin chose to inhibit this mention is no reason to cower in fear to indicate the possible depths of human behavior.



SDFarsight
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 241

10 Feb 2010, 12:09 pm

Sand wrote:
pakled wrote:
Don't forget Godwin...;)


Hitler and the German nation under Nazism is an outstanding example of human stupidity and brutality and mentioning it in the proper context is a very significant and worthwhile point. Because some guy named Godwin chose to inhibit this mention is no reason to cower in fear to indicate the possible depths of human behavior.


Do you know what the Godwin law is?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Feb 2010, 12:25 pm

SDFarsight wrote:
Sand wrote:
pakled wrote:
Don't forget Godwin...;)


Hitler and the German nation under Nazism is an outstanding example of human stupidity and brutality and mentioning it in the proper context is a very significant and worthwhile point. Because some guy named Godwin chose to inhibit this mention is no reason to cower in fear to indicate the possible depths of human behavior.


Do you know what the Godwin law is?


Godwin's law states that as a discussion is extended the probability of mentioning Hitler becomes a certainty. It may seem a neutral comment but its action is to inhibit the mention of Hitler and on that basis I made my remark.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Feb 2010, 1:50 pm

Image

Image

Image



SDFarsight
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 241

10 Feb 2010, 8:50 pm

Sand wrote:
SDFarsight wrote:
Sand wrote:
pakled wrote:
Don't forget Godwin...;)


Hitler and the German nation under Nazism is an outstanding example of human stupidity and brutality and mentioning it in the proper context is a very significant and worthwhile point. Because some guy named Godwin chose to inhibit this mention is no reason to cower in fear to indicate the possible depths of human behavior.


Do you know what the Godwin law is?


Godwin's law states that as a discussion is extended the probability of mentioning Hitler becomes a certainty. It may seem a neutral comment but its action is to inhibit the mention of Hitler and on that basis I made my remark.


Well its function is to define the first person who mentions Hitler/Nazism as having lost the debate, unless the subject of the debate is about Hitler/Nazim/WW2.



Last edited by SDFarsight on 10 Feb 2010, 9:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

10 Feb 2010, 8:50 pm

encore, encore



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Feb 2010, 9:08 pm

Perhaps an addition should be made to Godwin's law. Anyone mentioning Godwin's law is at a loss to retort properly to a prime example of human brutality and stupidity and has thereby lost the debate.



SDFarsight
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 241

10 Feb 2010, 9:14 pm

The Godwin law axists to point out cheap debate tactics, like ad hominems. 'The Nazis used X, thus X is evil.'



TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

10 Feb 2010, 9:48 pm

SDFarsight wrote:
The Godwin law axists to point out cheap debate tactics, like ad hominems. 'The Nazis used X, thus X is evil.'


SAID LIKE HITLER HIMSELF!



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Feb 2010, 10:12 pm

SDFarsight wrote:
The Godwin law axists to point out cheap debate tactics, like ad hominems. 'The Nazis used X, thus X is evil.'


There is nothing "cheap" about mentioning a supreme excursion into human brutality. There are enough other examples around but Hitler's persuasion of an entire nation to depart from basic human decency is a worthwhile example of how humanity can act. I would say that mentioning Godwin's law is rather cheap in comparison. It verges on the territory of Holocaust deniers.



SDFarsight
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 241

10 Feb 2010, 10:25 pm

Sand wrote:
SDFarsight wrote:
The Godwin law axists to point out cheap debate tactics, like ad hominems. 'The Nazis used X, thus X is evil.'


There is nothing "cheap" about mentioning a supreme excursion into human brutality. There are enough other examples around but Hitler's persuasion of an entire nation to depart from basic human decency is a worthwhile example of how humanity can act. I would say that mentioning Godwin's law is rather cheap in comparison. It verges on the territory of Holocaust deniers.


Indeed, but it is cheap to associate something with the Nazis for the sake of discrediting it when the thing in question doesn't really have anything to do with Nazism, merely that the Nazis used it. To take a simplistic example, saying that chairs and tables are evil because the Nazis used them.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Feb 2010, 10:49 pm

SDFarsight wrote:
Sand wrote:
SDFarsight wrote:
The Godwin law axists to point out cheap debate tactics, like ad hominems. 'The Nazis used X, thus X is evil.'


There is nothing "cheap" about mentioning a supreme excursion into human brutality. There are enough other examples around but Hitler's persuasion of an entire nation to depart from basic human decency is a worthwhile example of how humanity can act. I would say that mentioning Godwin's law is rather cheap in comparison. It verges on the territory of Holocaust deniers.


Indeed, but it is cheap to associate something with the Nazis for the sake of discrediting it when the thing in question doesn't really have anything to do with Nazism, merely that the Nazis used it. To take a simplistic example, saying that chairs and tables are evil because the Nazis used them.


Anybody who resorted to that type of idiotic reference cannot be taken seriously. And that applies to your reference as well. But the use of Godwin's law is frequently taken in legitimate concern about human conduct and your evident dismay that Nazism should be used as a legitimate reference to human depravity strikes me as somewhat either naive or unconcerned that this departure from basic decency is a worthwhile point of interest. That dismays me.



Unorthodox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 95
Location: Northwest USA

11 Feb 2010, 1:47 am

I think that Godwin's point wasn't so much that Hitler or Nazi comparisons are invalid or irrelevant, but rather that they are stale, cliched and overused, and his "law" humorously illustrates the point. I wouldn't say that someone who makes a Nazi comparison is automatically wrong per se, but I'd definitely think they were unoriginal at best.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Feb 2010, 1:57 am

Unorthodox wrote:
I think that Godwin's point wasn't so much that Hitler or Nazi comparisons are invalid or irrelevant, but rather that they are stale, cliched and overused, and his "law" humorously illustrates the point. I wouldn't say that someone who makes a Nazi comparison is automatically wrong per se, but I'd definitely think they were unoriginal at best.


Perhaps it isn't such a fallacy, but rather just an outdated usage. Though the statement of "if Hitler tried it, it might be a bad idea" still has some humor value, it is rather old.

More properly, and generally, such a thing could be stated as,

(1) This dictator has little or no regard for human life.
(2) If this person performed an action based on their valuation of human life, then it might be a bad idea to try it.
(3) this person performed euthanasia of those he considered to be unfit.
(4) it might be a bad idea to try euthanasia.

Not just due to association, but due to their regard for human life. I'm probably stating this poorly though, as I am quite tired.



Unorthodox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 95
Location: Northwest USA

11 Feb 2010, 2:19 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Perhaps it isn't such a fallacy, but rather just an outdated usage. Though the statement of "if Hitler tried it, it might be a bad idea" still has some humor value, it is rather old.


That's what I was getting at, Nazi comparisons aren't "wrong", they're just a bit dated and overused. What I find funny is to use these Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments to agitate against such things as vegetarianism, anti-smoking policies, and dogs, Hitler having been fond of all of them they must then be evil... :roll: