Isn't that just the epitome of internet "debate". Who will be the first to play the Hitler card? Hitler was an atheist; Hitler was a Christian. Hate speech directed towards Christians (and indirectly all religious) is based on arrogance and ignorance.
Nah, the theory is that any debate, on a long enough timeline, will result in something being compared to Hitler/Nazis/The Holocaust, and that perhaps in order to try and elevate ourselves above simply being organic probability machines, we should avoid making reference to these things casually. It's also suggested that to compare someone being a bit of a dick on an Internet forum to Hitler kind of undermines the historical seriousness of the atrocities he oversaw. So basically, Godwin's law is: first person to compare something to Hitler, the Holocaust or the Nazis loses the debate by default. I guess this doesn't apply to all debates on all subjects, but I'd certainly agree that Hitler's Christianity (even if we take it as read that he was a Christian at all) is only ever cited for shock value and/or to try and solicit an emotional response, and that since he is not particularly representative of the billions of Christians that have lived since the religion's inception, Godwin's law should indeed apply. I looked up Reductio ad Hitlerum, and it basically seems to be a sub-category of The Fallacy Of The Consequent, which is another popular Internet favourite. Essentially: "[x person], who is established as a genius, was called crazy in his time. [y person] is called crazy in his time, therefore since being a genius is a consequence of being called crazy (rather than the other way around), [y person] must be a genius, and this is illustrated by the fact that [x person] is a genius." To put this in context, substitute "[x person]" for "Einstein", and "[y person]" for "Deepak Chopra" or "that guy who says water is alive".
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I basically agree as you said, but I think there are some exceptions. I mean, calling Stalin a "Soviet Hitler" is at least arguable (based on the starvation of millions of Ukrainians); calling Bush an "American Hitler" loses an argument.
Well yeah, there's situations where it's appropriate, or at least excusable. And there are probably other comparisons or "Internet standards" that could be subject to Godwin's law in certain debates. Hitler/Nazis are just the most common ones.
Dear Ukr-Cdn I think that you like many of your co religionists do regard Stalin as an Atheist Hitler rather than merely just a soviet one. This is all very silly to many of us. May be the religious here resort to these arguments out of desperation and the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of there own positions.
Ummm, no. Stalin was only just a "Soviet Hitler" when it came to the genocide of millions of Ukrainians.
