Hitler, God and the Bible

[MoValley John]

In conclusion, I have nothing left to offer than this, it is unfortunate that people make lazy comparisons to Hitler and politicians or even policy. It is just as unfortunate and lazy when people try to stifle discussion by invoking Godwin's Law even when Godwin's Law doesn't apply.

With that, I must end with a fantastic video.

[kcshocker11]

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Mike Godwin

Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

:onthego:

[Wu du Nord]

Last night, I went to bed thinking you'd just had a little too much holiday eggnog. Today, after reading your continued thoughts, I realize that you're actually struggling against perceived giants. No worries. I don't mind.

Sure did. The video was a comparison to the Holocaust and abortion. Godwin's Law originally was an observation of internet discussions, namely, the longer a topic was discussed, the more likely that it would spin off into a comparison of Nazi Germany. Well, the ORIGINAL SUBJECT was a comparison to abortion and Nazi Germany, more specific, the holocaust. In that manner, Godwin's Law cannot be invoked because the topic was originally discussed in public, not on an internet forum, and even more precise, the comparison between Nazi Germany and abortion was the original topic, not a progression of an earlier topic.

The only way that you can tread water is to deliberately parse both the intention and context of my original comment in an unwarranted manner. I'll do you a solid and pretend your mistake is an honest misunderstanding and not hatched with a sinister bend.

Godwin's Law has spun off to include speeches and other comparisons between Nazi Germany, but even with that, in this instance, Godwin's Law still does not apply. You see, the topic at hand has to do with the sanctity of life and abortion. In all, an estimated 11,000,000 people died in the holocaust, of which, six million were Jews. There are estimates that over 60,000,000 people were killed in WWII. Since Roe V Wade, there have been more abortions performed in the United States than people killed on all fronts of WWII including the holocaust. And since many consider human life to begin at conception, comparing the deaths in WWII to the deaths from abortion is a fair comparison and Godwin's Law is not applicable.

So. Let me get this straight, you're saying that it's inapplicable, because abortion really is the same as Hitler.

Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you defend, that particular piece was an offense to the practices of good rhetoric, reasonable argument, and sustainable discourse. It's generally bad form to close your BS detector just because you happen to be on the same side as the camera crew.

Godwin himself never intended for his humorous observation to be invoked to stifle debate. Godwin's Law, properly invoked, would stifle discussion where there can be no fair comparisons made. People compared Nazi Germany with people and actions in the Clinton and Bush administrations, this was a proper place to invoke Godwin's Law. The same happens with Obama, also a proper time to invoke Godwin's Law. I hear comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany made with many politicians, it is easy for opponents to do. This is always a good time to invoke Godwin's Law. Unfortunately, your choice of invoking Godwin's Law does not meet the standard. It was a lazy attempt to stifle discussion where discussion and comparisons are warranted.

You do know that there isn't a black-ops team policing the internet and enforcing Godwin's Law, right? Also, your cat 'can haz cheesebrgers'. I get that you feel that there's hay to be made by comparing things to Hitler, but please understand that you do so at the peril of being marginalized.

[kcshocker11]

Time 4 this again

[MoValley John]

I never said abortion was the same as Hitler. Show me where I said that. Show me where I inferred it. Please.

I guess you can't. I simply stated that Godwin's Law does not apply. It should not have been invoked in this case and I showed just exactly why. Godwin himself agrees with me.

Let me slow down for you and explain in baby steps why Godwin's Law doesn't apply. Just like KC did I will use Wikipedia, but unlike him, I will source my material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Please read the entire Wiki article, it will show you exactly why Godwin's Law doesn't apply. Let me pull a few tidbits out of Wiki for you.

Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

As I said in the beginning, originally, Godwin's Law was based on the practice of internet discussions spiraling to the point that someone would inevitably make a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. Nowhere does Godwin's Law state that "All internet topics would ORIGINATE with a comparison with Hitler and the Nazis." In this thread, the comparison WAS the topic, it didn't evolve into a comparison being made. Furthermore, the comparison was made on a video that was based on a book, the comparison didn't take place here, the thread was created to continue the discussion and the comparison that was already made. Godwin's Law never stated that comparisons made outside of the internet should never be discussed on the internet. That would quash freedom of expression and freedom of speech, two cornerstones of the internet. I understand that someone that is pro choice wouldn't want the topic discussed and I understand why a pro choice wouldn't want the comparison made, but it doesn't rise to the level of invoking Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law, in this instance, simply would be invoked to end the discussion because someone didn't like the topic and had no other retort.

Going deeper into the Wiki article, which I sourced earlier, this is stated:

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis. 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, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.

Here is where you fall down further. As it states, the law is not intended to to end all comparisons with Hitler and Nazis. In fact, ideologies are clearly shown as exempt. Pro life or pro choice are certainly ideologies, therefore Godwin's Law does not apply in this thread. In fact, if you really want to parse eugenics, one facet of eugenics is to abort babies with health issues. Currently physicians perform a procedure known as amniocentesis to identify potential birth defects. This procedure leads to babies with unwanted health problems being aborted- Ala, one form of eugenics, therefore Godwin's Law does not apply to the topic at hand.

Lastly, to have a debate, you do not have to agree, nor do you have to accept the beliefs of your opponent, but you should understand them. Within the pro life community, it is a longstanding belief that human life fully begins at conception. It is also believed that these babies are innocent. You need not accept this, but before you attempt to invoke Godwin's Law, you should understand it. It is that core belief that also makes Godwin's Law not applicable. One of Hitler's beliefs was that the Poles, Jews and others were not fully human, just as the pro choice community believes that an embryo is not fully human. That, along with the scope of abortions performed, makes the comparison of Hitler and Nazis with abortion completely valid.

Godwin's Law was never intended to squash all comparisons of Hitler and Nazis, just the ridiculous ones. You attempted to invoke Godwin's Law to quash a discussion when Godwin's Law didn't apply. I can understand you being upset, afterall, you committed the fallacist's fallacy and were caught. Just as kcshocker11 was caught plagiarizing from Wikipedia.

[MoValley John]

I understand that Wikipedia isn't the gold standard of reference materials, but people use Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a place and a purpose. If you are going to quote from Wikipedia, you shouldn't be embarrassed, give them the credit they deserve and source the material.

[MoValley John]

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.
Further, a Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East."
On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories.
Despite contemporary attempts to characterize Hitler as opposed to abortion, the historical evidence clearly and overwhelmingly supports only one possible conclusion: Hitler and his regime were adamantly pro-abortion. To depict Hitler as anti-abortion is a ludicrous as calling him anti-genocide or pro- Jewish. Both Hitler and his government had little regard for human life perceived as subpar, whether born or preborn.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html


http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/nazis.html

The more you delve into the topic, the more you see that the comparison is warranted. It is also why the pro choice faction in America loathes the comparisons made between Hitler and abortion in the US. Some loathe it so much that they attempt to invoke Gowin's Law to squash the debate!!!

Time for more video!!!!!!!

[Wu du Nord]

I never said abortion was the same as Hitler. Show me where I said that. Show me where I inferred it. Please.

a) The word you wanted was 'imply'; not infer. But that's cool. Here you can learn the difference.
b) Technically, you're right. You didn't imply that abortion was the same as Hitler, you implied that abortion was quantitatively worse than WWII - which includes Hitler. Therefore you implied that abortion was worse than Hitler. Is that what you meant? Are you a gotcha message boarder? ;-)

I guess you can't. I simply stated that Godwin's Law does not apply. It should not have been invoked in this case and I showed just exactly why. Godwin himself agrees with me.

Let me slow down for you and explain in baby steps why Godwin's Law doesn't apply. Just like KC did I will use Wikipedia, but unlike him, I will source my material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Wikipedia has failed you, badly. I tried to warn you earlier that you're not arguing against a real thing, but you persist.
Here: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law
Here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

This is what a natural law looks like: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BernoullisLaw.html

[Wu du Nord]

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/nazis.html

The more you delve into the topic, the more you see that the comparison is warranted. It is also why the pro choice faction in America loathes the comparisons made between Hitler and abortion in the US. Some loathe it so much that they attempt to invoke Gowin's Law to squash the debate!!!

Holy cow! Angelfire and Tripod are still online?

Surely we can agree that something can be morally bad and not be Hitler?

[pinstripers]

Just kill me now.

[Wu du Nord]

Just kill me now.

Nice try, but if I kill you then I would be just like Hitler.

You won't trick me into being Hitler.

PS. What did you think was happening in a thread titled "Hitler, God and the Bible"?

[MoValley John]

I have tried to explain but you are being obtuse. Therefore, since I don't believe Godwin's Law applies to this topic and I attempted to demonstrate how and why, I will simply ask you to do the same. Explain to me when a comparison to Hitler and Nazis can be made without Godwin's Law being invoked. I will be interested to read your examples.

[SubGod22]

I have tried to explain but you are being obtuse. Therefore, since I don't believe Godwin's Law applies to this topic and I attempted to demonstrate how and why, I will simply ask you to do the same. Explain to me when a comparison to Hitler and Nazis can be made without Godwin's Law being invoked. I will be interested to read your examples.

He doesn't believe in providing any info to backup anything he says. Just because he says it, he feels that should be enough. How dare you question him....

[Wu du Nord]

I have tried to explain but you are being obtuse. Therefore, since I don't believe Godwin's Law applies to this topic and I attempted to demonstrate how and why, I will simply ask you to do the same. Explain to me when a comparison to Hitler and Nazis can be made without Godwin's Law being invoked. I will be interested to read your examples.

For the 3rd time: You misunderstand the nature of the 'law' and the meaning of its 'invocation.' You're right, I am being obtuse, because I hope to jump-start your imagination. I simply do not feel compelled to argue the specifics of your validity claims because I recognize that your mistake is explicitly categorical in nature.

If it helps, maybe you should just think of Godwin's Law as a short-handed way of teasing about invocations of the specter of Hitler.

It doesn't - in and of itself - invalidate anything (although there are almost alwasy a handful of logical fallacies around when it is mentioned), but it IS strong suggestion that the person who feels compelled to make comparisons to Hitler is a lazy nob.

He doesn't believe in providing any info to backup anything he says. Just because he says it, he feels that should be enough. How dare you question him....

Here's a secret, I can't tell what you read and what you don't read, nor can I tell what you're thinkin' when you're readin'; so, do me a a favor and point to the specific unsupported claims you find problematic.

Also you might hint at what you consider sufficient evidence for a claim.
I strongly suspect you're objections are easily dissolved.

[MoValley John]

In other words, you got nothing. You got called out and fell a victim of the fallacist's fallacy. Smug people HATE being called out! :acne:

I have been on both sides of the Godwin's Law debate, many times. In itself, Godwin's Law was meant only as a humorous observation, but like many things, took legs of its own. Memetics indeed! That said, many have used it in attempt to discredit an idea or belief simply because a comparison, valid or not, has taken place. I noticed a distinct smugness in your tone in many threads, saw that you really like to hit and run, saw where you improperly invoked Godwin's Law and I pounced. :):):):)

But since you can provide no instances where a comparison to Hitler and Nazis can be made, I can only assume that you feel those comparisons are always off limits.