Dear Leftists,

I know you all love claiming anyone who opposes you must have the same ideas and character of Hitler and the Nazis, but contrary to your much beloved position, this does not actually contribute to the discussion, rather the discussion is stifled due to inappropriate analogies.

Here is Mike Godwin's take on it:


Quote:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Furthermore:


Quote:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[9] Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


It would also be prudent at this point to look at Leo Strauss' term: Reductio ad Hitlerum:


Quote:

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association ... Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[2][3] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Blah blah blah. However I dont think i am a "leftist" and i havent used that argument in anything but the israel/palestine situation where it is a valid comparison.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Blah blah blah. However I dont think i am a "leftist" and i havent used that argument in anything but the israel/palestine situation where it is a valid comparison. SOB

But it's not the same situation.
Palestinians aren't being systematically rounded up and murdered (genocide). Arabs are also allowed to be citizens of Israel, Jews were stripped of their German citizenship.

I am not going to get drawn into this because no matter how many times the differences are explained they just don't sink in.

Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims.

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims.

Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later.

SOB

And here was me thinking this was about Godwin Grech!   A liberal stooge in the APS who led the Opposition into thinking Rudd had done something wrong with a car dealer!   How embarrassing! - it was all fake!   Turnbull, Abetz and Hockey are still wiping the crap from their faces AFTER THAT ONE EXPLODED!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am: Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims. Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later. SOB

Oh, how surprising, you want to use the “yeah but” clause as a signature.

RAOFPMSL ;D ;D

Godwins Law is not a tool for nullifying legitimate comparisons. Thank you and goodnight.

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims.

but you ARE anti-semitic, therefore your argument fails. but at age15 you do belive intriinsically in the rightness of ANY opinion that you hold.

At some point in the discussion, no matter what the topic if you are talking to a HOWARD-LOVER, he/she will bring the nasty out.

lisa.greek wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

And here was me thinking this was about Godwin Grech!   A liberal stooge in the APS who led the Opposition into thinking Rudd had done something wrong with a car dealer!   How embarrassing! - it was all fake!   Turnbull, Abetz and Hockey are still wiping the crap from their faces AFTER THAT ONE EXPLODED!

Um, what did Hockey have to do with it?  :-? :-?

There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law.

Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard".

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 3:57pm:

There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard".

There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law.

Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance".

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance".

Because equality and tolerance are such bad things.

SOB

why do you always talk about the "lefties"? it always comes across as insulting, especially given that there's a lot of "lefties" who certainly don't engage in the tactics you've describved, and a sh!t load of so called "righties" who do.

didn't you hear what the "righties" did to john derbyshire lately?

JC Denton wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

why do you always talk about the "lefties"? it always comes across as insulting, especially given that there's a lot of "lefties" who certainly don't engage in the tactics you've describved, and a sh!t load of so called "righties" who do. didn't you hear what the "righties" did to john derbyshire lately?

I am not bothered if they feel insulted. That's partly my objective.
But, there's too many Godwin's been introduced lately to stifle debate.

And you're not one to talk about insulting others. Most of your posts are littered with insult.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 12:55pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 6:14pm: why do you always talk about the "lefties"? it always comes across as insulting, especially given that there's a lot of "lefties" who certainly don't engage in the tactics you've describved, and a sh!t load of so called "righties" who do. didn't you hear what the "righties" did to john derbyshire lately? I am not bothered if they feel insulted. That's partly my objective. But, there's too many Godwin's been introduced lately to stifle debate. And you're not one to talk about insulting others. Most of your posts are littered with insult.

Where are the godwins?

SOB

GoddyofOz wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Godwins Law is not a tool for nullifying legitimate comparisons. Thank you and goodnight.

Exactly.

longweekend58 wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am: Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims. but you ARE anti-semitic, therefore your argument fails. but at age15 you do belive intriinsically in the rightness of ANY opinion that you hold.

You think I am but reality is often different from what you believe, as we see with the fact that you believe in fairy tales which obviously are not part of reality.

FriYAY wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:42am: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am: Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims. Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later. SOB Oh, how surprising, you want to use the “yeah but” clause as a signature. RAOFPMSL ;D ;D

Yeah but what. You support terrorists who act like Nazis.
When you refuse to accept that what else can I say?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance".

Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am: Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims. Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later. SOB

Bugger it wont fit in my sig

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance". Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that

So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion?

JC Denton wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

why do you always talk about the "lefties"? it always comes across as insulting, especially given that there's a lot of "lefties" who certainly don't engage in the tactics you've describved, and a sh!t load of so called "righties" who do.

You speak the truth, friend. Bolshie's constantly going on about "leftists" being totalitarians. It's his sole argument.

Bolshie, I humbly challenge you to post on something you've learnt from experience - something that has no reference to ideology.

The left/right game is boring waffle. Most of it is in your head.

Take time to smell the flowers, friend. Hopefully, we will meet in the afterlife.

Sorry, Bolshie. I take it back. I just read this thread, and I agree totally:


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:

In my experience as a tutor, it mostly comes down to the willingness of the student to learn. There are always a handful who are keen and pay attention, and there are always a handful who will do the least amount as possible. But, in some cases there really are bad teachers. I've known a few who do little as possible for their pay cheque.

As you can see I work in an environment where I have direct experience with leftists.
It's not so much ideology that's the problem, it's a constant taking sides with all that supposedly suffers. Should this really be the departure point for all intellectual activity?   

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

As you can see I work in an environment where I have direct experience with leftists. It's not so much ideology that's the problem, it's a constant taking sides with all that supposedly suffers. Should this really be the departure point for all intellectual activity?

I'm not sure what you mean by taking sides. Everyone who works has direct experience with all sorts of people.

Leftists? They are actually quite rare these days. I'd count a few Socialist Alternative types and people who sell the Green Left Weekly at train stations.

Go back to the 70s. Campuses were full of them. Unions were full of them. The whole country was dripping with leftists.

It's a different story now. It's a post-cold war world. The economy is fundamentally different. Students compete for places and marks with people from different backgrounds; workers compete for jobs with people from Asia; businesses compete for contracts and sales with cheaper operators overseas.

Conservatives like Prince Charles advocate environmental conservation. Far-right crusaders like David Oldfield advocate socialism. Old boys on this site advocate Enlightenment humanist values in their critique of multiculturalism.

An all-encompassing narrative of the left does not exist anymore. You have to go to places like Nepal, West Bengal, Venusuela or Guatemala to find old style leftists, and even there you'll find them struggling with realpolitik.

For Marx and Lenin, this would always be the challenge of leftist parties - the issue of putting theory into practice.

In Australia, we've put them out of business with affluence. In places like Europe, where the GFC proved Lenin right about speculative capitalism, they seem to be making a bit of a comeback.

But not for long. It's hardly the end of ideology, but the right and left have shifted into the other's territory. While we sit around and squabble along ideological cold-war lines, the rest of the world is working out how to develop and catch up with the west.

As always, politics will follow economic growth. Much of the west is now in recession with dwindling economies. China, India and Brazil now have the highest economic growth. If their domestic consumption improves as predicted, their GDPs will surpass the US and Europe in less than 20 years.

Economic growth changes everything: population, living standards, employment and education. Look at the baby boom generation and how their politics and values transformed the west.

This is the real story of the world at this point in our history. It's not about right and left, it's about stagnation and growth.

Old boy moaners are a symptom of change. They don't occupy an ideological position; they just resist change, whether they lean towards left or right.

The world is turning, Bolshie. Same as it ever was.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 1:46pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance". Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion?

No the opposite. I am saying it is an opinion developed only by emotion and not by evaluating the facts and/or reality

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 5:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:42am: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am: Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims. Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later. SOB Bugger it wont fit in my sig

Damn
How about "Whenever legitimate concerns are raised about Israel or a Jew, in 90% of occasions someone will be called 'anti-Semitic' to divert/end the conversation and/or guilt trip people/s into forgiving/forgetting issues raised.

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:02pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 1:46pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance". Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion? No the opposite. I am saying it is an opinion developed only by emotion and not by evaluating the facts and/or reality

Whether one likes or dislikes refugees is a subjective personal opinion. Facts and reality, whatever that is, doesn't matter. On the one side you have the lefties allowing anyone and everyone in, and on the other you have the right who would rather they stay in their own country. The former take the position they do because they are overly sensitive and empathize with anything that they believe suffers, the latter emphasize personal responsibility and believe they ought clean up the mess their own country is in.
Whatever side you take, it's nothing but personal opinion. Sure, each have different outcomes, but neither are objective. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:09pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:02pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 1:46pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance". Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion? No the opposite. I am saying it is an opinion developed only by emotion and not by evaluating the facts and/or reality Whether one likes or dislikes refugees is a subjective personal opinion. Facts and reality, whatever that is, doesn't matter. On the one side you have the lefties allowing anyone and everyone in, and on the other you have the right who would rather they stay in their own country. The former take the position they do because they are overly sensitive and empathize with anything that they believe suffers, the latter emphasize personal responsibility and believe they ought clean up the mess their own country is in. Whatever side you take, it's nothing but personal opinion. Sure, each have different outcomes, but neither are objective.

I do not pretend to own this land so I do not pretend to have an authority on who comes to it.
You would wet your pants in the position some of those people find themselves in
Most of the time the problem in their own country is caused by the west.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:34pm: As you can see I work in an environment where I have direct experience with leftists. It's not so much ideology that's the problem, it's a constant taking sides with all that supposedly suffers. Should this really be the departure point for all intellectual activity?    I'm not sure what you mean by taking sides. Everyone who works has direct experience with all sorts of people. Leftists? They are actually quite rare these days. I'd count a few Socialist Alternative types and people who sell the Green Left Weekly at train stations. Go back to the 70s. Campuses were full of them. Unions were full of them. The whole country was dripping with leftists. It's a different story now. It's a post-cold war world. The economy is fundamentally different. Students compete for places and marks with people from different backgrounds; workers compete for jobs with people from Asia; businesses compete for contracts and sales with cheaper operators overseas. Conservatives like Prince Charles advocate environmental conservation. Far-right crusaders like David Oldfield advocate socialism. Old boys on this site advocate Enlightenment humanist values in their critique of multiculturalism. An all-encompassing narrative of the left does not exist anymore. You have to go to places like Nepal, West Bengal, Venusuela or Guatemala to find old style leftists, and even there you'll find them struggling with realpolitik. For Marx and Lenin, this would always be the challenge of leftist parties - the issue of putting theory into practice. In Australia, we've put them out of business with affluence. In places like Europe, where the GFC proved Lenin right about speculative capitalism, they seem to be making a bit of a comeback. But not for long. It's hardly the end of ideology, but the right and left have shifted into the other's territory. While we sit around and squabble along ideological cold-war lines, the rest of the world is working out how to develop and catch up with the west. As always, politics will follow economic growth. Much of the west is now in recession with dwindling economies. China, India and Brazil now have the highest economic growth. If their domestic consumption improves as predicted, their GDPs will surpass the US and Europe in less than 20 years. Economic growth changes everything: population, living standards, employment and education. Look at the baby boom generation and how their politics and values transformed the west. This is the real story of the world at this point in our history. It's not about right and left, it's about stagnation and growth. Old boy moaners are a symptom of change. They don't occupy an ideological position; they just resist change, whether they lean towards left or right. The world is turning, Bolshie. Same as it ever was.

Reducing everything to economics was Marx's position. While you make some fair points, I disagree that economics is the sole driver of human affairs. If we do a reduction to a sole cause, I think Nietzsche's will to power comes as close as we can get. Yet just claiming the base human drive is to will power doesn't analyse the content of the ideas driving man to power.
Money or economics is one of those ideas that drive man. There's also science, engineering, religion, procreation, utilitarianism, to name just a few.
My concern is what I call a will to weakness; which goes under the guise today of 'equality' and 'tolerance.' There is a huge trend toward castigating anything that is perceived to have power or that is in authority. There's a trend being encouraged to whine about power just for the sake of it. This is childish. Most of those who whine about power have absolutely no idea on what the authority structure should be replaced with. Just one example is those who whine about capitalism. Never do they have a solution.

On a more positive note, does the word reverence mean anything today?

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:34pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:09pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:02pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 1:46pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm: There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard". There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law. Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance". Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion? No the opposite. I am saying it is an opinion developed only by emotion and not by evaluating the facts and/or reality Whether one likes or dislikes refugees is a subjective personal opinion. Facts and reality, whatever that is, doesn't matter. On the one side you have the lefties allowing anyone and everyone in, and on the other you have the right who would rather they stay in their own country. The former take the position they do because they are overly sensitive and empathize with anything that they believe suffers, the latter emphasize personal responsibility and believe they ought clean up the mess their own country is in. Whatever side you take, it's nothing but personal opinion. Sure, each have different outcomes, but neither are objective.  I do not pretend to own this land so I do not pretend to have an authority on who comes to it. You would wet your pants in the position some of those people find themselves in Most of the time the problem in their own country is caused by the west.

You're moving off topic.
The point was that decisions are never devoid of emotion.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

[quote author=6F45564A4548240 link=1336608361/26#26 date=1336817506][quote author=7A47434B2E0 link=1336608361/25#25 date=1336811661] My concern is what I call a will to weakness; which goes under the guise today of 'equality' and 'tolerance.' There is a huge trend toward castigating anything that is perceived to have power or that is in authority. There's a trend being encouraged to whine about power just for the sake of it. This is childish. Most of those who whine about power have absolutely no idea on what the authority structure should be replaced with. Just one example is those who whine about capitalism. Never do they have a solution.

There you have it. No need to whine, Bolshie.

We're extremely fortunate, you know.

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12^th, 2012 at 9:10pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 5:06pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:42am: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am: Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims. Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later. SOB Bugger it wont fit in my sig Damn How about "Whenever legitimate concerns are raised about Israel or a Jew, in 90% of occasions someone will be called 'anti-Semitic' to divert/end the conversation and/or guilt trip people/s into forgiving/forgetting issues raised.

That one didnt quite fit either. I changed it a bit. I wanted the original. Admins more space for sig please!

SOB

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 3:57pm:

There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law. Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard".

What the modern day equivalent of Godwins law for progs?

Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the growth/islamophobia/homophobia/your-pet-obcession-phobia", or its predecessor "stop global warming/cooling/poverty/trade/jewish conspiracy/".

Or what? What's the prog tactic when the going gets rough and people stop listening?

Godwin sounds like a NAZI.

Interesting that Morning Mist omitted to quote this part of the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law....


Quote:

Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent. While falling afoul of Godwin's Law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

Just because one person makes a reference to Hitler or the Nazis doeasn't mean that the whole discussion is finished.  It just means that the person who made that reference has diminished credibility.

It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.

Frances wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Interesting that Morning Mist omitted to quote this part of the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law.... Quote: Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent. While falling afoul of Godwin's Law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Just because one person makes a reference to Hitler or the Nazis doeasn't mean that the whole discussion is finished.  It just means that the person who made that reference has diminished credibility. It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.

Then you're welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc.

You can't because there is no comparison.

It's a tactic used by the emotionally and intellectually deficient to stifle debate and smear opponents unjustifiably.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Then you're welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc. You can't because there is no comparison. It's a tactic used by the emotionally and intellectually deficient to stifle debate and smear opponents unjustifiably.

Why should I provide evidence such as you suggest?  There is no need on your part to make further references to Nazi atrocities in response to my post, although if you want to commit a Godwin yourself, I can't stop you.

If you could be bothered reading what I posted, you would see that I did not support, to any degree whatsoever, the statement you were objecting to.  In fact I referred to posting such comments as diminishing the credibility of the person making them.

your strict application of certain aspects of Godwin's Law is not appropriate in a forum such as this.  It may have a place in formal debating, but not here.

Interpreting Godwin's Law in the manner you are suggesting is a rightist tool to stifle debate.

Well it is a thread about godwins law

SOB

Quote:

frances wrote If you could be bothered reading what I posted, you would see that I did not support, to any degree whatsoever, the statement you were objecting to.  In fact I referred to posting such comments as diminishing the credibility of the person making them.

Then why did you state this?

Quote:

It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.

Sounds like you're accusing me and/or Mike Godwin of stifling debate?



Quote:

frances wrote your strict application of certain aspects of Godwin's Law is not appropriate in a forum such as this.  It may have a place in formal debating, but not here.

It is extremely relevant here. I am trying to teach some of the clowns who post here to clean up their act. If you want to be taken seriously then the effort must be put in to prove your case true. The forum will be all the better for it. It will also help each individual poster learn the mechanics of proper debate and what passes for acceptable dialogue in the real world. If they want to just swear and poke fun at others then there's plenty of chat rooms and blogs around the net were those children can play.



Quote:

frances wrote Interpreting Godwin's Law in the manner you are suggesting is a rightist tool to stifle debate.

There you go again.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Quote: It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate. Sounds like you're accusing me and/or Mike Godwin of stifling debate?

I'm accusing you of it.  Mike Godwin is hardly responsible for what people do with his "Law".


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

your strict application of certain aspects of Godwin's Law is not appropriate in a forum such as this.  It may have a place in formal debating, but not here.

It is extremely relevant here. I am trying to teach some of the clowns who post here to clean up their act. If you want to be taken seriously then the effort must be put in to prove your case true. The forum will be all the better for it. It will also help each individual poster learn the mechanics of proper debate and what passes for acceptable dialogue in the real world. If they want to just swear and poke fun at others then there's plenty of chat rooms and blogs around the net were those children can play.[/quote]

You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right.

Frances wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right.

Well if the lefties didn't continually engage in reductio ad hitlerum in place of a reasoned argument, there'd be no need to apply "the law".

It's basically ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

if the lefties didn't continually engage in reductio ad hitlerum in place of a reasoned argument, there'd be no need to apply "the law".

On this forum, the majority of offenders are from the left, but not all.  I'm sure that corporate_whitey and one or two others from the right have been guilty of this too.



... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

It's basically ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

It's more than that - it's a method of arguing that sends a message to others that the person using it is not worthy of much attention.  In other words, if someone uses this tactic, they diminish their own credibility.

I don't think it's fair to apply any label to whitey, left or right.

He's a special case.  They broke the mould after they made that one, and with good reason too.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is weak. - 
William Godwin

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

I don't think it's fair to apply any label to whitey, left or right. He's a special case.  They broke the mould after they made that one, and with good reason too.

They're not something I would normally use, but that post really calls for these:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

frances wrote You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right.

Then my original assertion was correct:

You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

Then my original assertion was correct: You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc.

Actually, your original assertion is absolute crap if you're directing it at me, which you appear to be doing.

So you agree with my concern that there are too many unjustified Hitler comparisons here?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:13pm:

So you agree with my concern that there are too many unjustified Hitler comparisons here?

Yes.  And on this forum there are more from the left than from the right - unlike another forum I used to post on, where most of this sort of name calling came from the right, the main culprit there being an American who frequently quoted Glenn Beck....

I hope Frances is not going to launch into one of her pro Indian Infanticide rants. :(

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

Quote: frances wrote You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right. Then my original assertion was correct: You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc.

I agree that the Hitler comparison is used too often with now no effect. I would also assert that most don't understand what actually happened back then. Hitler was by no means the monster that gas jews and did medical experiments until later in his time, he was at first hailed an economic genius that gave his poverty stricken nation work, food and hope. He restored self respect for the German people after the humiliation of the post WW1 era. At that time the only signs of the monster was his discrimination socially against jews and gays and ethnic Germans in general. This was not seen as a problem around the world as most countries considered the jews a major problem at that time even the US. The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back.

The main offenders are usually jews. They bring it up. Whenever you try to ask them about israel they bring up the "holocaust". you are then forced to compare them to their nemesis because they are so hypocritical.

SOB

nairbe wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 7:01am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 6:12pm: Quote: frances wrote You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right. Then my original assertion was correct: You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc. I agree that the Hitler comparison is used too often with now no effect. I would also assert that most don't understand what actually happened back then. Hitler was by no means the monster that gas jews and did medical experiments until later in his time, he was at first hailed an economic genius that gave his poverty stricken nation work, food and hope. He restored self respect for the German people after the humiliation of the post WW1 era. At that time the only signs of the monster was his discrimination socially against jews and gays and ethnic Germans in general. This was not seen as a problem around the world as most countries considered the jews a major problem at that time even the US. The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back.

You must have a very low opinion of Abbott and the Liberals and the Australian people to think that it would happen here.
Additionally, what policies are in place or are going to be implemented that would lead to another holocaust?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

nairbe wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:01am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 6:12pm: Quote: frances wrote You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right. Then my original assertion was correct: You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc. I agree that the Hitler comparison is used too often with now no effect. I would also assert that most don't understand what actually happened back then. Hitler was by no means the monster that gas jews and did medical experiments until later in his time, he was at first hailed an economic genius that gave his poverty stricken nation work, food and hope. He restored self respect for the German people after the humiliation of the post WW1 era. At that time the only signs of the monster was his discrimination socially against jews and gays and ethnic Germans in general. This was not seen as a problem around the world as most countries considered the jews a major problem at that time even the US. The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back. You must have a very low opinion of Abbott and the Liberals and the Australian people to think that it would happen here. Additionally, what policies are in place or are going to be implemented that would lead to another holocaust?

To tell the truth howard was a bit scary in that way too. Its the attitude I think.

SOB

The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back.  - Nairbe.

Yes - that is the lesson.

As for comments on LNP actions-  as a Qlder recently acquiring an LNP government, I can tell you the writing is not only on the wall,  its already in action.

Seems Can-do Campbell Newman venerates Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
Of all insults possible to throw in the face of his 'detractors'... to proclaim Joh in the Inaugral address to the Queensland Parliament is a disgrace.
They have been very quick to show their muscle... they have acted in aggressive and biased ways already.
Can list some but ..sure you get the drift.!
The police state has returned to QLD.!!

I doubt you southerners get any info about the new LNP govt in Q.
In fact I'd be amazed if you do. :(

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

nairbe wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:01am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 6:12pm: Quote: frances wrote You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right. Then my original assertion was correct: You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc. I agree that the Hitler comparison is used too often with now no effect. I would also assert that most don't understand what actually happened back then. Hitler was by no means the monster that gas jews and did medical experiments until later in his time, he was at first hailed an economic genius that gave his poverty stricken nation work, food and hope. He restored self respect for the German people after the humiliation of the post WW1 era. At that time the only signs of the monster was his discrimination socially against jews and gays and ethnic Germans in general. This was not seen as a problem around the world as most countries considered the jews a major problem at that time even the US. The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back. You must have a very low opinion of Abbott and the Liberals and the Australian people to think that it would happen here. Additionally, what policies are in place or are going to be implemented that would lead to another holocaust?

You completely missed the message with your desperate need to self justify. No one is suggesting another holocaust, the Israelies are doing a good job of ensuring that happens in the middle east. It is the deterioration of many things that have made this such a great country for so long. Personal freedom, workers rights, civil disobedience, and genuine feelings of mateship that are now used to create nationalist fever.

Emma wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back.  - Nairbe. Yes - that is the lesson. As for comments on LNP actions-  as a Qlder recently acquiring an LNP government, I can tell you the writing is not only on the wall,  its already in action. Seems Can-do Campbell Newman venerates Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Of all insults possible to throw in the face of his 'detractors'... to proclaim Joh in the Inaugral address to the Queensland Parliament is a disgrace. They have been very quick to show their muscle... they have acted in aggressive and biased ways already. Can list some but ..sure you get the drift.! The police state has returned to QLD.!! I doubt you southerners get any info about the new LNP govt in Q. In fact I'd be amazed if you do. :(

I grew up in the Joh years and have not forgotten what he was and the way it was. Hold on QLD the storm clouds are gathering.

truly I'm not looking fwd to it. 
No Southerners replies yet.  Guess they're in the dark. 

Yep I was shocked to hear Newman praising Bjelke-Petersen. Maybe if I knew more about him, I wouldn't have been.  His rhetoric and the way he oozed into power should have made me realise.  I guess I did, in a way, ..!!  :( :(  - but I hope for the best, usually.  Now I have a sense of doom.  Not only for QLD, but for the rest of Aus.

Wake up  people,  deny these fascists that hold such sway over your psyche. For your own souls, if for no-one else.
It's that serious a schism in our society, and its bad to be so helpless before the future.

In recent times,  the moral corruption and rot set in when Howard first became PM. I was there.... I remember.
I had always voted Labor,  ...never having been anything but working class.
That changed around the time fat face became Labor leader.  I do't mean moonface milkybar kid - I mean the fat dude???  what was his name??  totally ineffectual, and leading the party away from its basic principles.  Ah that one... K Beasley. Yep voted green since then.

Now heres a few facts -  The Qld LNP have closed the Office of Climate Change.  Will allow the culling of fruit bat colonies.  Has cancelled state aid to Sisters Inside, a really worthwhile outfit , helping girls and woman to get back into society... etc etc.

Just the beginning.  :(

Emma wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 9:01pm:

truly I'm not looking fwd to it.  No Southerners replies yet.  Guess they're in the dark.  Yep I was shocked to hear Newman praising Bjelke-Petersen. Maybe if I knew more about him, I wouldn't have been.  His rhetoric and the way he oozed into power should have made me realise.  I guess I did, in a way, ..!!  :( :(  - but I hope for the best, usually.  Now I have a sense of doom.  Not only for QLD, but for the rest of Aus. Wake up  people,  deny these fascists that hold such sway over your psyche. For your own souls, if for no-one else. It's that serious a schism in our society, and its bad to be so helpless before the future. In recent times,  the moral corruption and rot set in when Howard first became PM. I was there.... I remember. I had always voted Labor,  ...never having been anything but working class. That changed around the time fat face became Labor leader.  I do't mean moonface milkybar kid - I mean the fat dude???  what was his name??  totally ineffectual, and leading the party away from its basic principles.  Ah that one... K Beasley. Yep voted green since then. Now heres a few facts -  The Qld LNP have closed the Office of Climate Change.  Will allow the culling of fruit bat colonies.  Has cancelled state aid to Sisters Inside, a really worthwhile outfit , helping girls and woman to get back into society... etc etc. Just the beginning.  :(

I remember the Joh years very very well. There were certain positives mind you, you don't win all those years of government just on a well planned gerrymander. Hospitals in QLD made the rest of the country look second rate as did the education system. Roads were well planned development was promoted without all the BS and the economics were sound.

These are the types of things people want and are prepared to look the other way as human rights are abused, women's rights denigrated, a police state takes over the protection schemes and drug market from the criminals and accountability becomes a long past ideal. You can forget the labor bungling of the last few years as the LNP machine will simply not allow the media such latitude and will crush any thought of dissension whether it be from outside or in.

20 years of labor rule ended with a ordinary effort and the wheels falling off but we know that the LNP will end in another Fitzgerald enquiry into the systematic corruption that will be Newman. Wait for the mining boom on the Great Barrier Reef, the exploitation of development though out the coastal region and the complete destruction of Aboriginal rights. Don't worry about the wild rivers, they will be the exploited rivers with no future and a destroyed ecosystem. Then the people of QLD can sit back and wonder why the hell they gave such a nasty little man such an unbelievable majority. Power corrupts absolutely.

Emma wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 9:01pm:

truly I'm not looking fwd to it.  No Southerners replies yet.  Guess they're in the dark.  Yep I was shocked to hear Newman praising Bjelke-Petersen. Maybe if I knew more about him, I wouldn't have been.  His rhetoric and the way he oozed into power should have made me realise.  I guess I did, in a way, ..!!  :( :(  - but I hope for the best, usually.  Now I have a sense of doom.  Not only for QLD, but for the rest of Aus. Wake up  people,  deny these fascists that hold such sway over your psyche. For your own souls, if for no-one else. It's that serious a schism in our society, and its bad to be so helpless before the future. In recent times,  the moral corruption and rot set in when Howard first became PM. I was there.... I remember. I had always voted Labor,  ...never having been anything but working class. That changed around the time fat face became Labor leader.  I do't mean moonface milkybar kid - I mean the fat dude???  what was his name??  totally ineffectual, and leading the party away from its basic principles.  Ah that one... K Beasley. Yep voted green since then. Now heres a few facts -  The Qld LNP have closed the Office of Climate Change.  Will allow the culling of fruit bat colonies.  Has cancelled state aid to Sisters Inside, a really worthwhile outfit , helping girls and woman to get back into society... etc etc. Just the beginning.  :(

I would have to say that that isn't too bad a start,especially for NQ farmers.

nairbe wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 10:54am: nairbe wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:01am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 6:12pm: Quote: frances wrote You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right. Then my original assertion was correct: You and others are welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman or any other Liberal are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc. I agree that the Hitler comparison is used too often with now no effect. I would also assert that most don't understand what actually happened back then. Hitler was by no means the monster that gas jews and did medical experiments until later in his time, he was at first hailed an economic genius that gave his poverty stricken nation work, food and hope. He restored self respect for the German people after the humiliation of the post WW1 era. At that time the only signs of the monster was his discrimination socially against jews and gays and ethnic Germans in general. This was not seen as a problem around the world as most countries considered the jews a major problem at that time even the US. The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back. You must have a very low opinion of Abbott and the Liberals and the Australian people to think that it would happen here. Additionally, what policies are in place or are going to be implemented that would lead to another holocaust? You completely missed the message with your desperate need to self justify. No one is suggesting another holocaust, the Israelies are doing a good job of ensuring that happens in the middle east. It is the deterioration of many things that have made this such a great country for so long. Personal freedom, workers rights, civil disobedience, and genuine feelings of mateship that are now used to create nationalist fever.

What message did I miss? It seems quite clear that you're implying that the Godwins are justified. That Abbott, Newman and the Liberals are Nazis waiting to launch their tirade on the people.

It's cheap way to score points.

IMO all godwins are justified in this thread. Prolly why you sound like a nazi.  :) [smiley=grin.gif]

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 19^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

IMO all godwins are justified in this thread. Prolly why you sound like a nazi.  :) [smiley=grin.gif] SOB

They probably would sound justified to a 7 seven year old. Run along now.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 19^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

nairbe wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 8:19pm: [quote author=35080C04610 link=1336608361/55#55 date=1337302459][quote author=7C737B607077120 link=1336608361/53#53 date=1337288489][quote author=083531395C0 link=1336608361/48#48 date=1337242363][quote] You completely missed the message with your desperate need to self justify. No one is suggesting another holocaust, the Israelies are doing a good job of ensuring that happens in the middle east. It is the deterioration of many things that have made this such a great country for so long. Personal freedom, workers rights, civil disobedience, and genuine feelings of mateship that are now used to create nationalist fever. What message did I miss? It seems quite clear that you're implying that the Godwins are justified. That Abbott, Newman and the Liberals are Nazis waiting to launch their tirade on the people. It's cheap way to score points.

No i don't think they are Nazi's as this is a concept that is past like communism and will need a 1000 odd years to have them again. No i see Abbott, Rudd, Newman and CO as being sold to business and the corporate power of people like Forrest and Murdock. There focus is not on the country and a natural balance of opportunity, equality and services, but rather on squeezing every last drop of profit out of everything as fast as they can so that they look good and keep the powerful on side.

Call it "greedism", it is the loss of empathy and genuine interest in equality and common decency. It is putting business before people, shareholders before the customer and profit before honesty, the "ME" generation. We will destroy our community structures and create peasants again in our societies. We will crush the descents with armies and never understand why they were angry at us, we will justify 10,000's of deaths as being for our security with never a moments thought as to why we need that security. We will see our freedom eroded in the name of democracy. Much already is happening and as it gets worse we are beginning to eat ourselves but somehow we don't care anymore because greed is more important.

You started out okay, then descended into hyperbole with the whole peasants and killing thing.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 19^th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 19th, 2012 at 2:34pm: IMO all godwins are justified in this thread. Prolly why you sound like a nazi.  :) [smiley=grin.gif] SOB They probably would sound justified to a 7 seven year old. Run along now.

Gawd . . . . idiot

SOB

Just two points....

1/ Godwin's 'law' is NOT a law.

2/ Comparisons with Nazis ARE often justified.

Quote:

kat wrote 1/ Godwin's 'law' is NOT a law.

Not in the legislative sense, but then again, I never said it was, neither does Mike Godwin.


Quote:

kat wrote 2/ Comparisons with Nazis ARE often justified

Then the onus is on you to provide hard evidence that this is the case.

Kat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 1:59pm:

Comparisons with Nazis ARE often justified.

Perhaps if you're talking about the likes of Idi Amin it might be, but not in Australian politics.  The worst we've ever had couldn't compare to Hitler in particular, or the Nazis in general.

Huh
yeah... :(
but WE'RE STILL TRYING.!!!!!!!!
[smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 12:19pm:

You started out okay, then descended into hyperbole with the whole peasants and killing thing.

The pesants are already there, and unfortunately they always will be. It is the enlargement of this demographic, the divide between being poor and the possibility of climbing out of that situation. This is and will continue to be a growing issue while Greedism rules.

As for the dead they are with us right now. How many innocent people have died in Iraq for your(meant in the third person and not personally) sense of security. There are other answers to these problems but they always require more long term thinking and of course they will cost business as we would need to mind our own business much more. In what way do you imagine the need to interfere for "our" security will be reduced in the foreseeable future.

nairbe wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 7:20pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 12:19pm: You started out okay, then descended into hyperbole with the whole peasants and killing thing. The pesants are already there, and unfortunately they always will be. It is the enlargement of this demographic, the divide between being poor and the possibility of climbing out of that situation. This is and will continue to be a growing issue while Greedism rules.

I'd like to know what your definition of poor is. Is it similar to those in death camps?




Quote:

As for the dead they are with us right now. How many innocent people have died in Iraq for your(meant in the third person and not personally) sense of security. There are other answers to these problems but they always require more long term thinking and of course they will cost business as we would need to mind our own business much more. In what way do you imagine the need to interfere for "our" security will be reduced in the foreseeable future.

The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did.

Quote:

The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did.

Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 7:39pm:

nairbe wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:20pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 12:19pm: You started out okay, then descended into hyperbole with the whole peasants and killing thing. The pesants are already there, and unfortunately they always will be. It is the enlargement of this demographic, the divide between being poor and the possibility of climbing out of that situation. This is and will continue to be a growing issue while Greedism rules. I'd like to know what your definition of poor is. Is it similar to those in death camps? Quote: As for the dead they are with us right now. How many innocent people have died in Iraq for your(meant in the third person and not personally) sense of security. There are other answers to these problems but they always require more long term thinking and of course they will cost business as we would need to mind our own business much more. In what way do you imagine the need to interfere for "our" security will be reduced in the foreseeable future. The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did.

Now you are bringing up the Nazi's to justify your argument.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

No the peasants at worst could get to the slums of India over time but for now let's just focus on the inability to transform their situation.

Iraq was to crush the imminent threat of WMD's, remember them they were a fantasy and have been shown to be nothing but paranoia. It was not necessary and for our arrogance how many died. At least 100+ thousand all the way to the amazing estimates of a million. Honesty is never easy, particularly when it comes to our own insecurity.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB

Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not.

All regimes are not the same.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same.

I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do.

SOB

Quote:

nairbe wrote Now you are bringing up the Nazi's to justify your argument.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

The topic is about Godwin's law. You were trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was similar to what the Nazis did. I simply pointed out that that was not the case.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 8:03pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB

But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 8:07pm:

Quote: nairbe wrote Now you are bringing up the Nazi's to justify your argument.  ;D ;D ;D ;D The topic is about Godwin's law. You were trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was similar to what the Nazis did. I simply pointed out that that was not the case.

OH i see, so you revert back to the basis of the discussion when the development of the topic moves to a place where you have no answers. I made it very clear on two levels;

1. I do not see our current political leadership as Nazi's i see them as Greedists.

2. The issue at the coure of mentioning the Nazi's is not a reference to death camps and book burnings but rather to societal ignorance to what is happening around them.

Well said Nairbe.

I don't have to say another word.

nairbe wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 9:00pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:07pm: Quote: nairbe wrote Now you are bringing up the Nazi's to justify your argument.  ;D ;D ;D ;D The topic is about Godwin's law. You were trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was similar to what the Nazis did. I simply pointed out that that was not the case. OH i see, so you revert back to the basis of the discussion when the development of the topic moves to a place where you have no answers. I made it very clear on two levels; 1. I do not see our current political leadership as Nazi's i see them as Greedists. 2. The issue at the coure of mentioning the Nazi's is not a reference to death camps and book burnings but rather to societal ignorance to what is happening around them.

There would be lots of countries that are full of people who are ignorant of many things, so your Nazi analogy here is very weak to say the least. And the examples you used of peasants and killings were proven false anyway.

Emma wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 9:08pm:

Well said Nairbe. I don't have to say another word.

They've let you out of the asylum for a while have they.

so says chuckles the clown. :) ;D ;D

Frances wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Kat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 1:59pm: Comparisons with Nazis ARE often justified. Perhaps if you're talking about the likes of Idi Amin it might be, but not in Australian politics.  The worst we've ever had couldn't compare to Hitler in particular, or the Nazis in general.

GOOD ONE.

Nicelely (and possibly deliberately) misinterpreted.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 9:26pm:

nairbe wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 9:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:07pm: Quote: nairbe wrote Now you are bringing up the Nazi's to justify your argument.  ;D ;D ;D ;D The topic is about Godwin's law. You were trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was similar to what the Nazis did. I simply pointed out that that was not the case. OH i see, so you revert back to the basis of the discussion when the development of the topic moves to a place where you have no answers. I made it very clear on two levels; 1. I do not see our current political leadership as Nazi's i see them as Greedists. 2. The issue at the coure of mentioning the Nazi's is not a reference to death camps and book burnings but rather to societal ignorance to what is happening around them. There would be lots of countries that are full of people who are ignorant of many things, so your Nazi analogy here is very weak to say the least. And the examples you used of peasants and killings were proven false anyway.

As we have clearly already over reached your intellectual ability to analyse information and made deductions base on probability and known fact we shall leave it there. You have failed to answer questions posed to you and now are denying the innocent that died in Iraq as a result of what was proven to be an out right lie and fabrication by the Uass over Weapons of Mass Deception. I pity people like yourself who are happy to be kicked in the guts, so long as the oppressor is of your choosing.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 8:08pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes?

Its irrelevant to my point.

SOB

My opinion is that you do not impose forcefulness upon a sovereign land unless that nation has first forced upon another nation in the way of action..not supposed threat.

The manner that our nations have acted may very well be in the name of political goodness, but it has failed dismally in respect of human lives.

IMO, it's blatant corruption.
To take that corruption out of the equation, it's very simple. We just respect the rules which foresaw such corruption..that's all.
It's up to us to respect that laws that we once thought to have significant value.
The laws that preceded us verily have intrinsic value.

Those laws were created because they foresaw the problems with greed which would arise in the future.

Now we have it. Now we see it.

Our nations are attacking other nations via threat. And not only visible threat, it's an invisible threat brought to you via the media.

When will you say, "I will only fight when I have been physically attacked?"

I don't disagree that it might seem a little foolhardy to have that opinion these days, but in the end we need to trust, and we need to trust that others will trust also.

Many nations are Christian or Muslim, or whatever..but we need trust beyond the gobbledegook, and let's face it, the major religions are useless pathetic gobbledegook.

What I think we look to now is those nations who have shunned religion, ie: Russia and China.
It's no surprise that they have come out on top, and are now dictating terms.
They never got sucked into the bs of our religion.

So do I worry about a China-man dictating terms to me?
Nope, I respect that they have a vision, and it's probably a whole lot better than the one that we thought we had.

Our vision has fallen completely flat IMO. We are in real need of a more forthright and upright nation to invade us and to make us appreciate our fallen soldiers and what they have died for.
At this point in time, I'd invite an invasion upon our pathetic ungrateful excuse for a nation.

Bring it on!!
Get me thu hell outta this ridiculous illogical sisterhood...puheasssse!

Watch out sister, I'm gonna switch sides and I'm gonna take you down!!
You've now rendered our version of democracy totally useless you stupid no-brainer.
Now let me take control OK?
I'm gonna stuff you all to oblivion. You have proved yourselves totally worthless and in need of correction.

Get used to it sister, get used to it Christian, get used to it Muslim,  'cause it's a happening thang! It will happen.ii

Quote:

A court has ordered a husband to pay his ex-wife $6000 a week to maintain her lavish lifestyle including a $500 hair and clothes budget and $1000 for entertainment. The Family Court heard the wife, who is in her 50s, had suffered a "drastic change" in her financial position since the couple's 11-year marriage broke up several years ago. Justice Christine Dawe ruled the allowance be granted until the couple, who are in their 50s, can agree on a settlement of their estimated $80 million estate, PerthNow reports. The wife had originally asked for $9000 per week, as well as $2 million for their son's expenses including $440,000 on holidays. She outlined her lavish expense budget including $1200 for food, $1100 for clothes, $770 for hairdressing and $1200 for household supplies. The court heard the husband opposed the payments as "manifestly excessive and unjustified" and that the wife had been given $19 million in partial settlements since they separated. Justice Dawe dismissed the husband's claims the payments were "excessive" and said some of the amounts were "necessary and reasonable". The husband's own expenses were submitted to the court as $33,000 a week, including looking after his son.

...Gee those ladies sure know the meaning of tough.. ;D

Let me take them down, starting with my stupid upstart sister, then next my pathetic ungrateful mum, both of whom which I have absolutely no respect at all.

It's war against them now.
It's war against the dumbass Christian, it's war against the feminist, it's war against the muslim.
As a democratic free thinking individual, I now side with the logical Chinese thankyou very much  :)

Anyway, I'm going to buy some shares 'cause all you idiots take no note of value.

See you again when I'm rich OK?  ;D

Amadd wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 10:01am:

Let me take them down, starting with my stupid upstart sister, then next my pathetic ungrateful mum, both of whom which I have absolutely no respect at all.

That sounds a bit harsh.  Do you have respect for any women at all?

Yes I do, just not the ones that I know personally.

Amadd wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 10:15am:

Anyway, I'm going to buy some shares 'cause all you idiots take no note of value. See you again when I'm rich OK?  ;D

Buy facebook shares. They are "down" atm.

SOB

double post.

nairbe wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 7:13am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 9:26pm: nairbe wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 9:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:07pm: Quote: nairbe wrote Now you are bringing up the Nazi's to justify your argument.  ;D ;D ;D ;D The topic is about Godwin's law. You were trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was similar to what the Nazis did. I simply pointed out that that was not the case. OH i see, so you revert back to the basis of the discussion when the development of the topic moves to a place where you have no answers. I made it very clear on two levels; 1. I do not see our current political leadership as Nazi's i see them as Greedists. 2. The issue at the coure of mentioning the Nazi's is not a reference to death camps and book burnings but rather to societal ignorance to what is happening around them. There would be lots of countries that are full of people who are ignorant of many things, so your Nazi analogy here is very weak to say the least. And the examples you used of peasants and killings were proven false anyway. As we have clearly already over reached your intellectual ability to analyse information and made deductions base on probability and known fact we shall leave it there. You have failed to answer questions posed to you and now are denying the innocent that died in Iraq as a result of what was proven to be an out right lie and fabrication by the Uass over Weapons of Mass Deception. I pity people like yourself who are happy to be kicked in the guts, so long as the oppressor is of your choosing.

My intellectual ability is fine thank you very much.

Let us go back over what is the issue here before you create more Red Herrings.


You stated this on page 4:

Quote:

I agree that the Hitler comparison is used too often with now no effect. I would also assert that most don't understand what actually happened back then. Hitler was by no means the monster that gas jews and did medical experiments until later in his time, he was at first hailed an economic genius that gave his poverty stricken nation work, food and hope. He restored self respect for the German people after the humiliation of the post WW1 era. At that time the only signs of the monster was his discrimination socially against jews and gays and ethnic Germans in general. This was not seen as a problem around the world as most countries considered the jews a major problem at that time even the US. The warning in the Hitler comparison is to the ignorance of the people who didn't see the monster creep up on them and the lesson that once the monster has control it is to late to turn back.

You distance yourself from direct Hitler comparisons, but maintain that many are ignorant of major problems and this makes the leaders (Liberals I presume for your position) is still linked to "being like Hitler;" that a Hitler like character is creeping up on us here.


Then you reiterate it again on page 6:

Quote:

The issue at the coure of mentioning the Nazi's is not a reference to death camps and book burnings but rather to societal ignorance to what is happening around them.

It is a very weak link to claim those who ignorant of things are going to be duped by a Hitler clone. People are ignorant of all sorts of things. Does this make leaders just like Hitler?

You then use two examples of this "creeping" Hitlerism.
That Australians are now peasants, and the Iraq invasion.

The first one is rubbish. Australians have had, and still do, possess a very high standard of living compared to most countries. (Funnily enough, when Hitler came to power he raised the standards of living for most Germans, so your comparison bums out in two respects here).

The second was, I admit, based on lies. But, politicians lie frequently, so your Labor buddies here too would be "creeping Hitlers." Additionally, the end result in Iraq was supposed to be not a fascist military state, but a liberal democracy. Two very different political doctrines.


The problem here is your vain attempt to, no matter what, link your political opponents to Hitler in some way or another. In doing so you over look empirical evidence that goes against your position. Like all ideologues, you are blinded by your emotional attachment to your beliefs. But, by all means, keep pumping out the false analogies, and I'll be there to show you the contradictions and inconsistencies in your positions.

dont bother with nairbe

this is the loony who thought the expression 'juliar' was a clandestine anti-semitic slur

he/she is prob some hysterical jew

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 7:24am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes? Its irrelevant to my point. SOB

I could ask you what your point was, but going on previous experiences you have a tendency to reinterpret the context of your positions after the fact.

You've proven yourself to be a waste of my time.

JC Denton wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 12:38pm:

dont bother with nairbe this is the loony who thought the expression 'juliar' was a clandestine anti-semitic slur he/she is prob some hysterical jew

Lol. He does draw long bows.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 12:41pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes? Its irrelevant to my point. SOB I could ask you what your point was, but going on previous experiences you have a tendency to reinterpret the context of your positions after the fact. You've proven yourself to be a waste of my time.

Are you serious? You dont get what I am saying? lol and you reckon you are so smart and you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that.

Here is what I said again (read it slowly)


Quote:

Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing.

Okay now what is the action. Invading and installing your own regime. Again the action: forcing your own beliefs on others. Action. Its an action.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes? Its irrelevant to my point. SOB I could ask you what your point was, but going on previous experiences you have a tendency to reinterpret the context of your positions after the fact. You've proven yourself to be a waste of my time. Are you serious? You dont get what I am saying? lol and you reckon you are so smart and you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that. Here is what I said again (read it slowly) [quote]Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing.

Okay now what is the action. Invading and installing your own regime. Again the action: forcing your own beliefs on others. Action. Its an action.

SOB[/quote]

Huh?

So what is the topic here for you, installing a regime or the noun 'action'?

And what does it have to do with the opening post?

Quote:

you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that.

Actually, that was me. 

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Quote: you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that. Actually, that was me.

You are right. I mistook mist for you. Are you the same?

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 12:53pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes? Its irrelevant to my point. SOB I could ask you what your point was, but going on previous experiences you have a tendency to reinterpret the context of your positions after the fact. You've proven yourself to be a waste of my time. Are you serious? You dont get what I am saying? lol and you reckon you are so smart and you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that. Here is what I said again (read it slowly) [quote]Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. Okay now what is the action. Invading and installing your own regime. Again the action: forcing your own beliefs on others. Action. Its an action. SOB

Huh?

So what is the topic here for you, installing a regime or the noun 'action'?

And what does it have to do with the opening post?


[/quote]

Who knows. Maybe if you read up in the quotes?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 1:08pm:

... wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 1:05pm: Quote: you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that. Actually, that was me.  You are right. I mistook mist for you. Are you the same? SOB

We're all human beings....

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:53pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes? Its irrelevant to my point. SOB I could ask you what your point was, but going on previous experiences you have a tendency to reinterpret the context of your positions after the fact. You've proven yourself to be a waste of my time. Are you serious? You dont get what I am saying? lol and you reckon you are so smart and you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that. Here is what I said again (read it slowly) [quote]Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. Okay now what is the action. Invading and installing your own regime. Again the action: forcing your own beliefs on others. Action. Its an action. SOB Huh? So what is the topic here for you, installing a regime or the noun 'action'? And what does it have to do with the opening post?

Who knows. Maybe if you read up in the quotes?

SOB[/quote]

"sigh" I gave you another chance to clarify yourself and you reply with that.

You are now officially a waste of my time.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 1:10pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:53pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 8:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 7:42pm: Quote: The Iraq situation was to remove Hussien and install and Western style liberal democracy. Although this was never achieved, it is still a far cry from what the Nazis did. Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. SOB Liberal democracies tolerate multiple viewpoints and allow people to vote, dictatorships do not. All regimes are not the same. I didnt say all regimes were the same. I said imposing your regime on someone else is the same thing they were trying to do. SOB But there's a world of difference between a liberal democracy and the National Socialist German Workers Party, yes? Its irrelevant to my point. SOB I could ask you what your point was, but going on previous experiences you have a tendency to reinterpret the context of your positions after the fact. You've proven yourself to be a waste of my time. Are you serious? You dont get what I am saying? lol and you reckon you are so smart and you said "there is nothing you understand that I do not". Yes you said that. Here is what I said again (read it slowly) [quote]Its invading someone else and installing your own regime. Forcing your own beliefs on others. Collectively. Same thing. Okay now what is the action. Invading and installing your own regime. Again the action: forcing your own beliefs on others. Action. Its an action. SOB Huh? So what is the topic here for you, installing a regime or the noun 'action'? And what does it have to do with the opening post? Who knows. Maybe if you read up in the quotes? SOB

"sigh" I gave you another chance to clarify yourself and you reply with that.

You are now officially a waste of my time.
[/quote]

You cant read?

SOB

Amadd wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 11:25am:

Yes I do, just not the ones that I know personally.

It gets hard at times to fathom others motives.  I HAD full trust in my ownly surviving sibling, My older(est) sister, until her manipulation and lies showed her to be the most devious, cunning, cold-hearted person I have ever known, of the female gender.
Lots of 2-faced bitches out there Amadd ....
My mother, now passed, earned my love and respect.  She told me, as a young person......  never trust a woman.!!!

So LOOK OUT people, we are throwing off the shadow of niceness.!!!
'Cos don't you know??
the female of the species is deadlier than the male. >:( :) :)

Quote:

the female of the species is deadlier than the male. Angry Smiley Smiley

Another reason they should be allowed to fight on front lines.

SOB

absolutely.!!

I have long held this to be a must.  Women have a long warrior history .
Not talking about Amazons either. 
Altho I don't they were real,  there is record of an all-female army, who continued fighting after their people had been defeated.
They were very successful..  And they fought on,.  till the death.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 12:37pm:

[quote author=444B4358484F2A0 link=1336608361/87#87 date=1337634835][quote author=75484C44210 link=1336608361/83#83 date=1337599582][quote author=39363E253532570 link=1336608361/81#81 date=1337598007][quote author=615C5850350 link=1336608361/79#79 date=1337594826] [quote] You then use two examples of this "creeping" Hitlerism. That Australians are now peasants, and the Iraq invasion. The first one is rubbish. Australians have had, and still do, possess a very high standard of living compared to most countries. (Funnily enough, when Hitler came to power he raised the standards of living for most Germans, so your comparison bums out in two respects here). The second was, I admit, based on lies. But, politicians lie frequently, so your Labor buddies here too would be "creeping Hitlers." Additionally, the end result in Iraq was supposed to be not a fascist military state, but a liberal democracy. Two very different political doctrines. The problem here is your vain attempt to, no matter what, link your political opponents to Hitler in some way or another. In doing so you over look empirical evidence that goes against your position. Like all ideologues, you are blinded by your emotional attachment to your beliefs. But, by all means, keep pumping out the false analogies, and I'll be there to show you the contradictions and inconsistencies in your positions.

I believe that i placed rising Naziism off the agenda when i gave it at least 1000 years of rest and rather offered you the word "GREEDISM". I see it quite different but none the less capable of very destructive social and ethical consequences. The issue that i repeatedly reinforced to you is the similarity in that the slow creep of these things hits without people realising. Such as the pure business position that banks take to interest rates, they see no reason to consider community good or the interests of the customer, and the community allow it when only 10 or 15 years ago they would have been guilted into action.

Australian dependancy on middle class welfare has eroded our self reliance. Many people in the middle class would collapse should the welfare be withdrawn and you can be sure it will be withdrawn in time. There are those who both socio-economically and financially have been left behind due to a variety of reasons, the opportunity for these people to succeed is very limited and a sense of finality in their situation can be very destructive. This situation is affecting a larger group of people who truly depend on welfare just to survive, what for them.

And lastly, please do quote where i identify this as a Liberal thing with big cheers for Labor. You are getting very lost in your own self justification. I did not identify any political party and around the world if you want to play politics both sides have played their part, fed and supported by the fear of the community.

Well I agree with Nairbe -  once again. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

so anyway , at the risk of stating the obvious,  my previous post, replying to Amadd, who seems to be taking the same oblique approach I am, didn't enlighten you??
Misty mourn ?  Borg-O??


Point???   your fractious to-ing and fro-ing is starting to resemble a game of PingPong.
This is boring and going nowhere.

As to the original idea.... I think  Godwin is most likely to be correct.
As to  a Law... I think we refer to 'lore'.

Lore. 
the premise is not unreasonable.??

A bit like Murphy's Law. :) We all have examples we could point to as evidence of that ..... if we choose to see it that way.  It has become lore.
:) :)

Emma wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Well I agree with Nairbe -  once again. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] so anyway , at the risk of stating the obvious,  my previous post, replying to Amadd, who seems to be taking the same oblique approach I am, didn't enlighten you?? Misty mourn ?  Borg-O?? Point???   your fractious to-ing and fro-ing is starting to resemble a game of PingPong. This is boring and going nowhere. As to the original idea.... I think  Godwin is most likely to be correct. As to  a Law... I think we refer to 'lore'. Lore.  the premise is not unreasonable.?? A bit like Murphy's Law. :) We all have examples we could point to as evidence of that ..... if we choose to see it that way.  It has become lore. :) :)

Hey dont blame me if he cant understand basic english. the whole convo is right there.

godwin made his lore to be used to stop the idiots that use nazi and hitler comparisons in every argument willy nilly. Obviously there are some exceptions where it is valid though.

There are other "lores" though. Theres the one where you cant tell if someone is taking the piss or actually a fundy (cant remember whos law that was).

SOB

This is a valid comparison. Not a godwin.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmOWzy1VVldtA_1JulrYKsdjV9_w?docId=CNG.20c454ffc5866faad328e80510823121.3f1


Quote:

Pastor stirs outrage with plan to let US gays 'die out' By Robert MacPherson (AFP) – 5 hours ago WASHINGTON — A Baptist pastor in North Carolina triggered Internet outrage Tuesday with his call from the pulpit for all gays and lesbians to be rounded up, fenced in like cattle, then left to die. Reverend Charles Worley delivered his unabashedly homophobic homily on May 13 -- Mother's Day in the United States -- at his independent Providence Road Baptist Church in the small town of Maiden, North Carolina. "Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 miles (240 to 160 kilometers) long -- put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food," Worley told his congregation, as seen in a video that went viral on YouTube with more than 305,000 views. "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out... and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out... Do you know why? They can't reproduce," he said. "If a man ever has a young'un, praise God, it'll be the first one." With some of his parishioners in the background shouting "amen," the barrel-chested Worley, 71, went on to say: "I ain't going to vote for a baby killer or a homosexual lover." That was an apparent reference to President Barack Obama, who four days earlier came out in favor of same-sex marriage, and who is not opposed -- as many Catholics and Evangelicals are -- to abortion. The local Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate launched a social media campaign (www.facebook.com/CatawbaValleyAgainstHate) to condemn Worley's sermon and organize a protest at his church on Sunday. "We need to line the street in front of the church with people with some common sense to tell the world that hate is not welcome in our community. And, believe me, the world is watching!!" it said. Same-sex marriage is a hot-button social issue looming over Obama's bid for re-election in November, and it's uncertain whether North Carolina, which voted for him in 2008, will do so again. Obama's apparent Republican adversary Mitt Romney opposes gay and lesbian marriage. On May 8, North Carolina voters approved a state constitutional amendment explicitly forbidding gay marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships. Similar bans exist in around 30 other US states. Worley could not be immediately reached for comment, while the Providence Road Baptist Church website (www.prbcnc.com) was out of order. Telephone calls to the church were met with busy signals. The furor spilled over into Google's review pages, where a growing number of contributors gave the Providence Road Baptist Church one star out of a possible five and lashed out at Worley. The only contributor to give the church five stars wrote: "Old Fashion Bible Believing Church. I feel so blessed to be a member. Brother Charles never pretends to be a saint. He preaches the true word of God."

SOB

You are getting the idea.

:) ;)

the more self-righteous religious , of any persuasion, including politics,.... are parody's of real people.
They have allowed their essential humanity to dissolve into a dogma, which is usually vicious to opponents, and will not/ cannot .. see the real ethical situation in which they have placed themselves.

Only they can save themselves...... what we say is as nothing.
Poor souls.
But.... far sadder, the ultimate victims of such focussed irrationality.