woody2014 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 11:22am:




forgiven

namaste

Hitler - catholic monster with his henchmen & supporters.

Bam wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Godwin's law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search






Mike Godwin (2010)
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]

In 2012, "Godwin's Law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[6]



Contents  [hide]
1 Corollaries and usage
2 History
3 See also
4 Notes
5 Further reading
6 External links


Corollaries and usage[edit]

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[8]

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[10]

History[edit]

Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written.[11]

See also[edit]


Portal icon Internet portal
Association fallacy
Reductio ad Hitlerum
List of adages named after people

Aussie wrote on Jan 17^th, 2014 at 5:50pm:


It is referred to in the Preamble.  So, yes, to take this bit out of the Preamble would require the usual procedure of changing The Constitution.

Quote:


Preamble Herei

Why not a compromise, get all the religious types into one of the anterooms and get them to pray there, whilst for 10 minutes the intelligent pollies can start on the business of the day

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 12:20pm:



Any workplace in the country that doesn't start a shift with the lord's prayer is disenfranchising religious people?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 4:25pm:


Actually no, the Catholic Church didn't openly oppose the Nazis...but that was a political decision based on fear (and the fact that the Church hasn't had a proper 'army' since the Crusades.