Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Politics Subforum Rules Addendum

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Politics Subforum Rules Addendum
Post by Spacekiwi   » Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:56 am

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

Effectively ending a conversation via a comparison to hitler/3rd reich.


Michael Everett wrote:
Hutch wrote:On another forum I frequent, they have a section to move posts that have denegrated to name-calling and Godwin-ing....

What's Godwin-ing?
:?
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: Politics Subforum Rules Addendum
Post by peke   » Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:56 am

peke
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:24 pm

Hutch wrote:On another forum I frequent, they have a section to move posts that have denegrated to name-calling and Godwin-ing....


Michael Everett wrote:What's Godwin-ing?
:?


Spacekiwi wrote:Effectively ending a conversation via a comparison to hitler/3rd reich.





Ahhhh, now I have a name for that often-seen argument that demonizes all atheists (like me) by claiming that Hitler was an atheist himself.
------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem so complex that it cannot be solved through the judicious application of high-power explosives.
Top
Re: Politics Subforum Rules Addendum
Post by cthia   » Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:57 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8104
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Hutch wrote:On another forum I frequent, they have a section to move posts that have denegrated to name-calling and Godwin-ing....


Michael Everett wrote:What's Godwin-ing?
:?


Spacekiwi wrote:Effectively ending a conversation via a comparison to hitler/3rd reich.





peke wrote:Ahhhh, now I have a name for that often-seen argument that demonizes all atheists (like me) by claiming that Hitler was an atheist himself.

Um, I can see the unfairness of winning an argument, like so, on one end of the spectrum. But on the other end, what if the comparison is true?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Politics Subforum Rules Addendum
Post by Spacekiwi   » Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:38 am

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

For the arguement,it doesnt matter if its true or not, its the fact that someone is claiming that by association to a topic, you are a nazi, and therefore your viewpoint is invalid. Its like saying that because someone is german/austrian like hitler, that their viewpoint is therefore automatically invalid, and so any further covnersation can only be on how much of a nazi they are. Its just a particular form of thread derailment, by changing a conversation into a denial of something irrelevant to the original discussion. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw





cthia wrote:
Hutch wrote:On another forum I frequent, they have a section to move posts that have denegrated to name-calling and Godwin-ing....


Michael Everett wrote:What's Godwin-ing?
:?


Spacekiwi wrote:Effectively ending a conversation via a comparison to hitler/3rd reich.





peke wrote:Ahhhh, now I have a name for that often-seen argument that demonizes all atheists (like me) by claiming that Hitler was an atheist himself.

Um, I can see the unfairness of winning an argument, like so, on one end of the spectrum. But on the other end, what if the comparison is true?
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
The Incompleteness of Godwin's Law
Post by cthia   » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:21 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8104
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

∨ THE INCOMPLETENESS OF GODWIN'S LAW ⊻


I have never been content with Godwin's Law. As it is, it is obviously incomplete.

It fails to consider at least one specific case where playing the
[HITLERCARD] is prudent. *

Because the explanation is so involved and such a beast, I steered clear. Time has now permitted my tackling of this issue. Removed from the Politics subforum, its synergy is presented here in its unabridged and nonredacted form.

No animals - with the possible exception of the beast itself - were intentionally harmed or feelings intentionally hurt. An attempt to enlighten the mood is made with humor.

My apologies in advance for such an ambitious post and to CMA lest I've failed to filter some excrement or remove any incidental likenesses. If so, I assure the resemblance is purely coincidental.


Hutch wrote:On another forum I frequent, they have a section to move posts that have denegrated to name-calling and Godwin-ing....

They call the subforum Abandon All Hope... 8-) :evil:
Michael Everett wrote:What's Godwin-ing?
:?
Spacekiwi wrote:Effectively ending a conversation via a comparison to hitler/3rd reich.
Peke wrote:Ahhhh, now I have a name for that often-seen argument that demonizes all atheists (like me) by claiming that Hitler was an atheist himself.
cthia wrote:Um, I can see the unfairness of winning an argument, like so, on one end of the spectrum. But on the other end, what if the comparison is true?
Spacekiwi wrote:For the arguement,it doesnt matter if its true or not, its the fact that someone is claiming that by association to a topic, you are a nazi, and therefore your viewpoint is invalid. Its like saying that because someone is german/austrian like hitler, that their viewpoint is therefore automatically invalid, and so any further covnersation can only be on how much of a nazi they are. Its just a particular form of thread derailment, by changing a conversation into a denial of something irrelevant to the original discussion.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw
Bold is my own literary license —cthia


Exhibit A:
What if the significant ingredient in the comparison is true?



Spacekiwi wrote:⇒ For the argument, it doesnt matter if its true or not, ...

That, in effect, depends on the "objective truth" ... which is the "particular truth" that I have chosen to place on Exhibit B

Exhibit A ⊨ Exhibit B :⇔ Exhibit A


Spacekiwi cont...

...its the fact that someone is claiming that by association to a topic, you are a nazi, and therefore your viewpoint is invalid. Its like saying that because someone is german/austrian like hitler, that their viewpoint is therefore automatically invalid, and so any further covnersation can only be on how much of a nazi they are.

That is reprehensible, I agree. But it is not the corollary that I am considering. I am considering the "absolute truth" of a separate, yet specific comparison regarding Hitler's "emotional state" and not his character. As in, the absolute spawn of Hitler is as insane as Hitler himself and his many propaganda machines. An insane person, can truly give no sane argument.

At the crux of my caution, is the fact that in some very specific cases, such as Newton's Law, laws fail. And Godwin's Law fails at, at least one point in axiomatic space. And that is the point where a comparison is made to shed light on a poster who is truly insane - like Hitler.

Godwin's Law focuses on a comparison made for comparison's sake. That has no merit. By the intent of Godwin's Law, it is simply to try and avoid the conversation, save a losing argument, or derail a discussion - in which case, the comparison is apples and oranges to bananas, which renders it irrelevant to the conversation at hand and it should be overruled.

However, if the assertion highlights one's actual clinical insanity - the principal constituent of Hitler's character - then the comparison should be sustained.

Truly imagine trying to sanely converse with Hitler himself - as the conundrum faced by his many advisors.

peke wrote:Ahhhh, now I have a name for that often-seen argument that demonizes all atheists (like me) by claiming that Hitler was an atheist himself.

Claiming that one is a demon because he is an atheist is a logical fallacy. Atheism does not necessarily imply demonism.

Atheism ⊭ Demonism


Claiming someone's argument is insane because they are insane, as was Hitler himself, is logical.

Insanity → Insane

Consider this...
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. **


Which suggests that Godwin himself understood the limitations of his law to be true only within the domain of the set {gratuitous Hitler-comparisons}. However, since Godwin's law was left incomplete, as in providing an actual set whereby the Tautology (T) is False, leaves the law to be misinterpreted and frivolously applied. As in...

T ⊄ {clinical insanity, non-gratuitous Hitler-comparisons}

It isn't enough to simply state that the function is only true in {gratuitous Hitler-comparisons} but must provide a set (range) where law fails. Yet in Godwin's defense, he was not attempting a formal or even an informal proof of his law. He generalized, which left far too much for idle and opportunistic minds to infer. I've attempted to alleviate that problem. Which follows that Godwin's Law is not incorrect, just incomplete.

It logically follows that one may not frivolously attribute Godwin's Law to an absolute comparison to Hitler that has merit, such as a relevant comparison to his mental state - whereby "gratuitous" has no merit. That would be as guilty as he who serves up irrelevant apples and oranges - as is the true essence of the meaning of Godwining. It would stink of hypocrisy.


Axiom of PlayDoh! : (Pardon me Plato!)

By the same token, trying to converse with, and make sense of, someone deemed to be insane, well, is itself insane.


It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card" has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of better arguments. **


Which completely ignores the :case in which the weight of truth of the specific comparison becomes the most important piece of evidence to the defense, and also becomes much bigger than the original argument, e.g., when Johnnie Cochrane's assertions regarding the incendiary recordings of the DA's lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, in perjuring himself - made privy and exacerbated by the inexcusable and quite shockingly horrendous revelations of LA police officers' sentiments, brutalities and atrocities against African Americans - became bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial itself and may have been the final straw that broke the prosecution's back and irrevocably turned the tide against the prosecuting team, which should have convicted (a guilty - in my book) O.J. Simpson.


In summary, if comparing someone to Hitler is analogous to pointing out their actual insanity, then it does not support the "Godwin's Law" characterization of its use as an insult or derailment - and thus, whereby they are insane, should be sustained.

In this one particular light, the disconnect is in accepting reductio ad Hitlerum as the phrase to be coined in the sense originally meant by Godwin's Law. And it should be recoined as reductio ad Nazi. And the comparison in the sense of possessing "Hitler-like insanity" should be reductio ad Hitlerum.

Which infers reductio sad sanitarium which more clearly includes the set {Hitler, all insane}

This is similar in nature and implies that Godwin's Law is a general - yet incomplete - law, that ignores a special case, inasmuch as the General Theory of Relativity does not encompass the Special Theory of Relativity.

Each has merit as it is intended, but is indeed two distinct corollaries.

The definition of insanity is in doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The practice of insanity is in trying to make sense of that which is... or those who are.




Exhibit B:

TREATISE:

INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE describes the phenomena whereby the insanity of (committing oneself) to an attempt at a discussion with someone who is insane is like shoveling intellectual sewage in the middle of a shitIstorm. It's the only thing you can smell over the internet. An informal logical empirical proof is as follows...

This is your brain => E = MCSQUARE

This is your brain suspended in the middle of intellectual sewage →

EQN: INTELLECTUAL HE = HIMCSQUARE SEWAGE

Hidden from plain sight until the reduction of the equation...

HE = HIMCSQUARE
Factoring out "truth" E = MCSQUAREH = HI

Dividing both sides by the cosmological incontinence associated with hemorrhoids (H) → I

[As constantly occurs from the pain of constipation associated with the constant interruptions by an ass]

substituting I in the original equation:

⇒ INTELLECTUAL I SEWAGE
[Where I is found in the middle of a shitIstorm]

⇒ ∃ Time (T) where I is bound by shit and storm

A more formal proof exists which describes the proof of the proof whereby substituting the derivative of the unknown quantity X' that lacks in the equation: {X' = XLAX} clears up the insanity of intellectual constipation ∴ cancelling out shitstorm.



Godwin's Law's missing case: {reductio sad sanitarium}

:Case
EQN: INTELLECTUAL HE = HIMCSQUARE SEWAGE

Layman's terms:
An element of the set {insane, ∅} = an [intellectual HE] who squarely sees sewage.

Implies [He who Sthinks inside box] ≡ Hitler

Contains the entire set of {insane, reductio ad Hitlerum, ∅ } which further reduces to...

! basket case: Hitler sad sanitariumreductio sad sanitarium

∴ ∃! :CASE where [HITLERCARD] ↔ ASYLUM

[requests asylum from ≔ U in Hitler sad sanitariUm]



Axiom of Common Sense:
lim f (insanity + s) = Sanity(S)
s→Ø


common sense (s) = {ℝ, ∞}
where ℝ is the set of real numbers.
S = Sanity

If s = Ø ⇔ then brain on drugs [fried] ***



Afterword:
I apologize if you find yourself knee deep in the excrement which is the object of this entire treatise - and to highlight the sa[n m]e insanity of it all, by example, when a poster is insanely operating from his own plane of existence.

If the treatise fails to make sense, then you have naturally solved for the missing case in Godwin's Law whereby reasoning with insanity is senseless as the recoined corollary on exhibit shows...

:case {reductio sad sanitarium}

A measured apology for writing my own Afterword. It may infer delirium.

Disclaimer:
In the place of "insane" some may prefer the more politically correct definition long ago given by my young niece...

A few bricks short of a fireplace. No smoke coming out of the chimney. No fire in the hearth. And no wood to make any.

Of course, the problem herein is in obtaining proof of the quantifier to commit someone's mental state to clinical insanity, which is difficult, at best, to ascertain over the net.

However, oftentimes the proof is in the pudding, i.e., after ruling out the labium superius oris, if it smells like excrement and tastes like excrement. It's an emergency!

* ∀ [HITLERCARD] = [ACE] ¬ [JoKeR]

** Link near top of post.

*** If s = Ø ⇔ then brain on drugs [fried]



A bit of discussion.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top

Return to Politics