The wrong side must not win
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 17:12
VIEWED: 8309
PAGE 4 of 10
Quote:
I'm sure if Hitler were running against Stalin, Jews might vote for Stalin, because he would make a significant difference to their lives under his rule.
What in godwins name are you on about?
I just can't continue this discussion with you because it feels like we are not talking about the same thing. I don't understand what you are trying to say in response to my post. Sorry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread. It may take me a week because I'll be out of town on business, but in the meantime, in that thread you started with a story about how your husband had traveled to that part of the world. Ringing any bells now?
Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish. - Signy
I absolutely wish. In fact, I dare you to find that thread.- CTS
Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did. - Signy
I absolutely NEVER said any such thing. I DARE you to prove I did. No end to your outright lies, is there?- CTS
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Godwin doesn't come into play just because someone mentions Hitler or the Nazis. The rule of Godwin is that the first person to COMPARE someone or something to Hitler or the Nazis FRIVOLOUSLY and without JUSTIFICATION loses. The basic jist of the fallacy in question is "this is bad, because Hitler/the Nazis did this." What defeats the argument is that whether something is good or bad is not dependent upon whether the person who is doing/did them is good or bad. Evil and good stand on their own merits (or lack thereof).
Technically, CTS wasn't really comparing anything to either Hitler or Stalin. It was more like she took the old "rock and a hard place" adage, and replaced the rock with Hitler and the hard place with Stalin, as the worst case scenario to illustrate the problem between choosing between a lesser or greater evil. At some point among the less-greater-evil spectrum, which is which becomes subjective and kind of a moot point, as both options are undesirable. Her argument is therefore an entirely different animal from a Godwin.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar
As a side note, if someone or a group of people commit genocide, it's actually okay to compare them to Hitler/the Nazis. Like Stalin! Similarly, if you're comparing a totalitarian dictator in an undeveloped or developing nation where there's been notable human rights violations to Hitler, it's also probably okay.
Quote:
The usage of Godwin's Law also has "Henderson's Law" as a corollary, referring to an observation by Joel Henderson that while Mike Godwin specifically stated this to pertain to "gratuitous Hitler-comparisons", Godwin's Law has been frivolously thrown at any comparison no matter how accurate or on-point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread.
Yeah, you do that. (Snicker. Snort.) You'll need to invent more lies, cause I never ever said any such thing.
Quote:Not in the least.
Ringing any bells now?
For the record, there are no formally recognized countries in Africa (Somalia included) that I see as a great example of anarchy. If they have a "government," (or warlords or someone using force on the populace) it's not anarchy, is it?
There are small pockets of tribal independence in limited areas in Africa, such as that of the Masai tribe in Kenya and Tanzania, that I see as a great example of anarchy. For me to see a population as anarchistic, it needs to meet 2 criteria.
1. They must be free from external force.
2. They must not exert any force on other populations.
Live and let live. That's anarchy.
Somalia? Not at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Technically, CTS wasn't really comparing anything to either Hitler or Stalin. It was more like she took the old "rock and a hard place" adage, and replaced the rock with Hitler and the hard place with Stalin, as the worst case scenario to illustrate the problem between choosing between a lesser or greater evil.
Yes, thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think about godwin when someone talks about nazis or stalin for that matter in relation to the current political climate. It doesn't help discussions because you are picking two extreme situations and it grinds discussion to a halt. "Would you vote for Stalin or Hitler?"
*sound of crickets*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... because you are picking two extreme situations and it grinds discussion to a halt. "Would you vote for Stalin or Hitler?"
Um, that's the point. I picked two very obvious evils. It helps ILLUSTRATE the dangers and relative benefits of picking between two less obvious evils.
Whether you wish to halt the discussion is up to you. There is nothing inherent in the illustration that would prevent the discussion from continuing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[citation needed] The Reductio ad Hitlerum attempts to refute a view because it has been held by Hitler.[4] The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]
from wiki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It... It's not a godwin or a reductio fallacy, just mentioning Hitler in a political context is not enough to evoke a godwin.
"According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is a logical fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam , a fallacy of irrelevance, and a a variation on reductio ad absurdum, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association." ~also from wikipedia
That didn't happen, it wasn't even a comparison. She just mentioned Hitler.
Example of a Godwin:
"So, you support highway construction, huh? You know who else liked his highways? HITLER."
^Note the implicit guilt by association - the person making this argument is suggesting that the person is like Hitler or is a Nazi because of this one opinion. It is an insult, an ad hominem attack, and also irrelevant.
Not a Godwin:
"So when we vote, we should vote for the lesser of two evils. What if you had to vote between Hitler and Stalin?"
^There is no guilt by association, this is a rhetorical question assuming that the person being asked wouldn't vote for either of them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gosh, Byte you are so right. I have seen the error of my ways. CTS's argument in bringing in Hitler and Stalin comparisons when discussing the current perception of political climate in the US now seems incredibly relevant. Thanks for your contribution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME