[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/13/2010 4:47 PM flipper spake thus:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:

On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:

**** off and DIE you smug ****.

You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.

Where did that rule come from?

Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???

Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.

Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states
""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.

Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of
it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion
forums such as this, it's often not correct at all.

What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad
Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
association fallacy (but can include others as well).

You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.

Dang.

Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.

Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?

d