Oh f'k godwin, that's every neo-nazi's favourite smokescreen. Nothing more convenient to the Irvings and Howards of this world than some "rule" that prevents people from calling them by their true names.
The Catholic hierarchy's been full of this sort of shit for centuries - and have their own nazi guilt from WW2 to hide, for that matter. They just get more vocal when national governments start supporting them.
Another damn good reason why we need to get the crown and church out of politics in this country and get a proportionally representative second house. Should have amputated the lot of them when the french did ;)
Unpleasant as they are, they're no Hitler. Maybe you could argue that they've just not been given the chance yet, but still...
That's sort of the point of Godwin's Law, that just about every such comparison is a hysterical escalation of the argument with no merit.
Anyway, you know well what GL actually *says*. Claiming it as some sort of rule or endgame move is either i) a joke, ii) a smokescreen, as you say, but one based on a misinterpretation of GL (such as exist with Murphy's and Moore's Laws) that hopefully anyone they're used against would be able to throw right back in their faces.
The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy is a special case of the genetic fallacy, of the form Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil.
Generally, when I argue the evils of abortion, I don't cite Hitler's abortion policy as evidence.
I also don't persist in believing that contraception is %Teh Ev1l™ or that abstinence-only education works even when studies would indicate that it doesn't[1]. Pro-life doesn't have to equal anti-reproductive choice.
[1] Such as:
Sexual Behaviors—Six evaluations measured short-term changes in sexual behavior.
Three of six programs had no impact on sexual behavior (California, Maryland, and Missouri).
Two of six programs reported increases in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest (Florida and Iowa). It was unclear whether the increases were due to youth's maturation or to a program's effect, as none of these evaluations included a comparison group.
One of the six programs showed mixed results (Pennsylvania).**
it is already happening... i mean.. Prince William didn't go to the chav school around the corner.. he went to Eaton, where he will meet other "high standing" people (including girls) that will then fuck with him in a toilet somewhere and carry on this elitist natural selection... not eugenics.. but economy in action!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Catholic hierarchy's been full of this sort of shit for centuries - and have their own nazi guilt from WW2 to hide, for that matter. They just get more vocal when national governments start supporting them.
Another damn good reason why we need to get the crown and church out of politics in this country and get a proportionally representative second house. Should have amputated the lot of them when the french did ;)
no subject
That's sort of the point of Godwin's Law, that just about every such comparison is a hysterical escalation of the argument with no merit.
Anyway, you know well what GL actually *says*. Claiming it as some sort of rule or endgame move is either i) a joke, ii) a smokescreen, as you say, but one based on a misinterpretation of GL (such as exist with Murphy's and Moore's Laws) that hopefully anyone they're used against would be able to throw right back in their faces.
no subject
Generally, when I argue the evils of abortion, I don't cite Hitler's abortion policy as evidence.
I also don't persist in believing that contraception is %Teh Ev1l™ or that abstinence-only education works even when studies would indicate that it doesn't[1]. Pro-life doesn't have to equal anti-reproductive choice.
[1] Such as:− http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/
eugenics
(Anonymous) 2005-03-28 09:20 pm (UTC)(link)