Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum

Godwin's law, or the rule of nazi analogy is:

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

I would argue that this is pretty accurate- I'm sure we've all been in debates when someone points out- "yeah well that's what happened with Hitler and look what he did!" Godwin urged people to restrict their use of Hitler analogies however saying that using it too often would rob them of their impact...

However, are Nazi analogies a fair form of debating? Say in this example:

Person A: "I think that the President should be given unlimited power to pass laws unrestricted."
Person B: "That's what Hitler got...and look what happened with him"

Is this a fair point?

What about this one?

Person A: "I think hunting animals should be banned."
Person B: "Hitler banned animal hunting, therefore you are a Nazi"

OK, obviously the second one is hardly logical- it's an example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in debating, simply association with Hitler to discredit an opponents points no matter how loose the association is.

However, are the Hitler analogies always invalid? Can anyone think of any good examples of Godwin's Law in action?

Discuss.

[edit] A more contentious example might be needed. A person might say Barack Obama is popular, an excellent orator and charismatic therefore he is worthy being voted for. Another person might respond, Hitler was all those things too. Is this an invalid point? Or is it actually a good one: just because someone is popular, a good orator and charismatic doesn't mean they are a good person. The bringing up of Hitler in this case isn't an attempt to suggest Obama is a Nazi but just to demonstrate how certain qualities can be shared by both good and bad people... however, is because of what Hitler did, it unfair to even mention him in comparison with someone like Obama?

I liked the part in A New Hope when Han Solo referred to the light saber as an ancient weapon. When I saw that movie for the first time, it opened up a humongous preexisting world in my mind. It was so mysterious that Han referred to it as such. I loved it. I think that KOTOR I and II were very nicely representative of this ancient history and weapon. KOTOR was wonderful in the fact that you could actually build your lightsaber from the ground up with each part...including the hilt. More to the present, there's a very nice cut scene of Starkiller (the protagonist) putting together a lightsaber with the force. This was very interesting and a joyous moment for me because I had always read that it was put together with the telekinetic abilities of the users, but I had never seen it done in a movie or game.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I liked the part in A New Hope when Han Solo referred to the light saber as an ancient weapon. When I saw that movie for the first time, it opened up a humongous preexisting world in my mind. It was so mysterious that Han referred to it as such. I loved it. I think that KOTOR I and II were very nicely representative of this ancient history and weapon. KOTOR was wonderful in the fact that you could actually build your lightsaber from the ground up with each part...including the hilt. More to the present, there's a very nice cut scene of Starkiller (the protagonist) putting together a lightsaber with the force. This was very interesting and a joyous moment for me because I had always read that it was put together with the telekinetic abilities of the users, but I had never seen it done in a movie or game.

...hell hath no fury, eh?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
...hell hath no fury, eh?

What does The Mourning Bride by William Congreve have to do with anything?

Here's the original: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor Hell a Fury like a woman scorned."

Originally posted by dadudemon
What does The Mourning Bride by William Congreve have to do with anything?

Here's the original: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor Hell a Fury like a woman scorned."

Hmm...as I said,

hell hath no fury.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm...as I said,

hell hath no fury.

You know what's funny? Good ol' Will died (probably) from a carriage wreck.

😆 😆 😆

I really can't fathom how someone could die from a wreck going, at most, five miles an hour. It is quite funny to me to think of a carriage crash killing someone.

I know I'm sick, but it's hilarious. 😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
You know what's funny? Good ol' Will died (probably) from a carriage wreck.

😆 😆 😆

I really can't fathom how someone could die from a wreck going, at most, five miles an hour. It is quite funny to me to think of a carriage crash killing someone.

I know I'm sick, but it's hilarious. 😆

Are you mad?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Are you mad?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't feed the troll. Use the report function.

Excellent idea.

*Reports self*

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Godwin's law, or the rule of nazi analogy is:

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

I would argue that this is pretty accurate- I'm sure we've all been in debates when someone points out- "yeah well that's what happened with Hitler and look what he did!" Godwin urged people to restrict their use of Hitler analogies however saying that using it too often would rob them of their impact...

However, are Nazi analogies a fair form of debating? Say in this example:

Person A: "I think that the President should be given unlimited power to pass laws unrestricted."
Person B: "That's what Hitler got...and look what happened with him"

Is this a fair point?

What about this one?

Person A: "I think hunting animals should be banned."
Person B: "Hitler banned animal hunting, therefore you are a Nazi"

OK, obviously the second one is hardly logical- it's an example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in debating, simply association with Hitler to discredit an opponents points no matter how loose the association is.

However, are the Hitler analogies always invalid? Can anyone think of any good examples of Godwin's Law in action?

Discuss.

Debate by analogy is a valid form of discussion. Using Hitler isn't automatically inaccurate, especially when it is accurate.

Nazism is always a sticky subject that offends a lot of people. Unfortunately, the term has become trite after decades of people using it as a threat or a self-proclaimed conclusion to another person's argument. Too often people who sling the mud of Hitler and Nazi defend themselves by saying the other person acted in a radical manner or said anti-Semitic statements or uttered nonconformist beliefs.

Hitler was a crazy man hellbent and determined to have his way through everything and everyone. A man that had to be stopped. To use this important ideology of nazism and to take it lightly is not a good and sound thing. People who do that often have no basis of credible knowledge and no respect of human decency. But it takes all kinds to make a world, and sometimes it is just best to walk away.

The first analogy Grand-Moff brings up about the President gaining unlimited power to pass laws unrestricted has unfortunately already occurred. Dick Cheney publicly flaunts on Meet the Press and 60 Minutes his success in fusing together the executive and legislative branches and extending himself above the law of all. Former President Bush gladly accepted the reins of driving the raging horses forward, pushing mightliy Congress to pass laws for unrestricted warfare against the Iraqi peoples. Israel for decades uses the money and war assets it garnishes from American taxpayers to an unrestricted free pass at seiging the poorly-equipped and poorly-manned Palestinian and Arabian lands. Is this Hitlerian? I think Bush was too incompetent to be crazy and careless to even notice. Cheney more fits the role of Hitlerian thinking, especially in terms of his big business connections.

I get to cite Godwin's Law all the time with my moderator status. People call me a Nazi all the time, even when I really don't deserve it...

Anyways, dadudemon, please don't stray from the topic.

The funniest threads are those that are geared towards calling people goose steppers, layers of irony are added. Particularly if you use a minority group to do this. You can cause all sorts of mayhem. This is because most people on the internet are stupid and actually believe people are who they say or hold the views they say on the internet. It is this stupidity that makes them "need" to debate with strangers on the internet whom they deem as "friends".