Does Godwin's Rule apply in Congress?

[billvon 3,109]

As one might have predicted, a GOP senator is now comparing Democrats to Nazis. It was inevitable. It would be really cool if Godwin's Law applied in the Senate - Rick Santorum would concede the point and the argument would end. But somehow I suspect that won't happen.

From Senate transcripts of Rick Santorum:
-----------------------------
We must tread very carefully before we go radically changing the way we do things that has served this country well, and we have radically changed the way we do things here. Some are suggesting we're trying to change the law, we're trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say "how dare you break this rule." It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 - "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine." This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused.
------------------------------

[Tink1717 2]

Uh, what is "Godwin's Rule"?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Keith 0]

Rick Santorum is so disliked in the gay community, there is a movement by one group, I don't remember which, to make Santorum synonymous with shit. As in, what a piece of santorum, or I just took the biggest santorum . . .

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

As one might have predicted, a GOP senator is now comparing Democrats to Nazis.

But if the senator later retracts his remarks, does Godwin's Rule still apply?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20050520/pl_nm/usa_congress_judges_apology_dc

. . =(_8^(1)

[Keith 0]

He didn't retract his statment, he 'redefined.'

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

He didn't retract his statment, he 'redefined.'

He admitted a "mistake". Maybe one of his internet saavy interns pulled him aside and told him about Godwin's rule.

I just don't give a Santorum about it if you want to nit-pick over my choice of words.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kelpdiver 2]

"It was a mistake and I meant no offense,"

can't you feel his heart there?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Uh, what is "Godwin's Rule"?

It's a geek thing. In an internet argument, the first person to invoke the Nazis is automatically the loser.

Edit to add: I mean "geek" in the best possible way, because I are one.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[quade 4]

I dunno if Godwin's Law applies, but I have noticed that the Peter Principle does . . .

Also, Norton's Law (of Septic Tanks); "The really big chucks always float to the top."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FallRate 0]

Does Godwin's law apply when discussing neo-nazis? Or is the use of the term "neo-nazi" an application of Godwin's law? Maybe instead of neo-nazi we should use the term "bad, bad people".

Also, if one were to propose a law which states that "anytime an argument results in a comparison of anything to drunkeness, the argument is over", does it mean we can no longer describe someone as appearing to be drunk?

FallRate

[Tink1717 2]

Oh, good one. I guess that the repubs loose most of the time.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[dorbie 0]

The real Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

It's an indirect analogy at best. His point is the Dems are breaking with house tradition and then saying "how dare you break with tradition". It's a good point, the Hitler analogy is totally redundant except to emphasize how utterly ridiculous the Democrat's position is.

Godwin's law says nothing about the debate being over or conceded and infact Godwin explicitly said that isn't the case, he merely intended people to evaluate gratuitous citing of Hitler. You'd have to be a real Nazi to assume otherwise.

[billvon 3,109]

>It's a good point, the Hitler analogy is totally redundant except to
>emphasize how utterly ridiculous the Democrat's position is.

I suppose it was inevitable that someone would defend it.

[dorbie 0]

Yup, that's because I understand the point he's making. It's easier to defend than lies about the statistics on judicial nominees.

P.S. the point is not about something Hitler did, he's not saying you're like Hitler. It's about how ridiculous it'd be if Hitler did something like say how dare you invade after invading. Something Hitler never did. Shame I have to explain it really.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In an internet argument, the first person to invoke the Nazis is automatically the loser.

First, I'm not picking on you here, Tom, just using your post to launch my view on this subject.

"Godwin's Law" is just a piss-poor excuse to claim "victory" when someone doesn't have any logic or facts to rebut an argument. It's actually a sign of losing the debate.

Healthy debate often involves comparing something to extreme examples, and Hitler's regime is the most prominent of such in recent history. Such analogies are useful in examining certain things.

But other extreme examples can also certainly be found: Pol Pot, the Japanese occupation of countries in WWII, Idi Amin, and so forth. Yet analogies to these alternatives don't prompt a similar declaration of "victory". And no one proposes a whole list of things that can't be mentioned in a debate, as that would be ludicrous.

If they don't like someone's comparison to Hitler or Nazis, they should refute it with facts and logic.

So the whole "Godwin's Law" thing is bullshit, and anyone who claims "victory" with it really doesn't have an argument.

We'll call this "Rich's Law": anyone who claims victory with "Godwin's Law", is automatically the loser.

So there - my law cancels out Godwin's law, and now everyone is back to square one and must actually think.

[dorbie 0]

That would be very interesting if that was Godwin's law but it isn't. All Gowdin's law states is that as an online discussion drags on a comparrison to Hitler or Nazis becomes certain. It says absolutely nothing about winning or losing, that's a secondary tradition.

[billvon 3,109]

>"Godwin's Law" is just a piss-poor excuse to claim "victory" when
>someone doesn't have any logic or facts to rebut an argument. It's
>actually a sign of losing the debate.

Saying "you're like a nazi!" is a piss-poor excuse that is used when someone has run out of coherent things to say. It's like arguing over who should spot, and saying "shut up, you fucking idiot!" A pedant might claim "I had every right to say that, since by his actions he demonstrated a lack of knowledge, and I wished to point that out" but most people on the plane would realize that the guy had just lost his temper and had nothing of value left to say.

The "you nazi!" reply is the ultimate fallback for someone who cannot make any more coherent arguments. They fall back on an emotional appeal by comparing the person they are arguing with to something bad. Of course, using that logic, the reply "no, _you're_ a nazi" is perfectly valid as well. Such arguments generally go nowhere.

>We'll call this "Rich's Law": anyone who claims victory with "Godwin's Law", is automatically the loser.

I think you might misunderstand Godwin's Law if you believe that.

>and now everyone is back to square one and must actually think.

Thinking people are generally able to discuss things without calling each other nazis.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>"Godwin's Law" is just a piss-poor excuse to claim "victory" when
>someone doesn't have any logic or facts to rebut an argument. It's
>actually a sign of losing the debate.

Saying "you're like a nazi!" is a piss-poor excuse



Thinking people are generally able to discuss things without calling each other nazis.

But of course the original statement didn't say "you're like a Nazi", that's just guilt by association with the law, you're trying to blur any distinction and indict by loose association. Again Godwin's law does not support the rest of your thesis either, you certainly misunderstand it even as you accuse others of misunderstanding it. Godwin himself has expressley rejected your type of claim on his original observation.

You're using Godwin's law to try and imply that someone has said "you're [like] a Nazi" in a statement where they clearly didn't. You're merely using the cover of Godwin's law to divert attention from any distinction between your charge and the actual statement they made. Moreover you accuse others of defending the indefensible for merely pointing out the difference between your accusation and the actual statement. That in itself is worse than anything Rick Santorum said IMHO.

[billvon 3,109]

>That in itself is worse than anything Rick Santorum said IMHO.

Santorum apologized for his remarks; he was smart enough to realize that comparing someone to Nazis is indefensible. But keep trying. You may yet find a brush wide enough to tar other people with his remarks.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>That in itself is worse than anything Rick Santorum said IMHO.

Santorum apologized for his remarks; he was smart enough to realize that comparing someone to Nazis is indefensible. But keep trying. You may yet find a brush wide enough to tar other people with his remarks.

I'm not tarring anyone with his remarks and never have, I'm holding you accountable for yours. The record is there, why must you persistently imply I or anyone else said things they haven't? Even when you cite Santorum's apology you again misrepresent what he said. Here's what Santorum said by way of explanation and it's exactly in line with what I've said here:

Quote

"Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues"

You've repeatedly ignored what Godwin's law actually states and played fast and loose with what Santorum actually said.

YOU wrote "you're like a nazi!", in quotes, Santorum never said it. You can repeat it as often as you like it's still not what he said.

That he withdrew any comment does not excuse nor justify your remarks, but keep bulldozing and ignoring the facts.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Saying "you're like a nazi!" is a piss-poor excuse that is used when someone has run out of coherent things to say.

But what if someone really is like a Nazi?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,109]

>But what if someone really is like a Nazi?

What if someone really is an asshole? Or is a bitch? Or is a complete and total loser, and you can prove it? You are still better off being rational with them. Namecalling rarely accomplishes much, no matter how creative the name.

[FallRate 0]

You may not have included it in your quote, but the term "nazi" seems to be missing. Santorum made use of an analogy which illustrated what he perceived to be a hypocrisy on the part of dems. To believe that he called the dems "nazis" is an overly sensisitive leap.

Edited to add:
From this thread...

Quote

What if someone really is an asshole? Or is a bitch? Or is a complete and total loser, and you can prove it? You are still better off being rational with them. Namecalling rarely accomplishes much, no matter how creative the name.

From another thread...

Quote

The religious hypocrites are more consistent assholes, since they (mostly) start with the same sheet of music.

FallRate