i will revise the above. i have no belief in the goodwin law whatsoever and think many analogies are appropriate. i also think though, that if you do ascribe to this law, it can be broadened as well to include other analogies.
however, and without any obligation on your part whatsoever, i will stop using it as of now, or that certainly is my intent. if however, i am being beaten over the head with similar analogies as usually is the case, that resolve will be weakened considerably.
First of all thanks to both posters for bringing up such an intriguing subject as Goodwin's Law. It is so rare that anything truely novel comes up on this board that when it does it is a breath of fresh air, a rare oppertunity to learn.
I have to admit that it is a subject that I was not at all familiar with. I find the assertion by Goodwin that the longer a conversation goes on, on the internet the greater the chance that a reference to Hitler or the Nazis will occur to be abosolutly facinating. What I think would be another branch of study on the same subject is weather or not the same behavior can be observed from one thread to another as long as they are by the same poster. Something I will have to study on. I think that the focus of my studies will be on Roudy. irose, and MJB as they seem to be the most frequent abusers !!! Seal not so much as he seems to use such illusions exrtremely infrequently if at all. His laspes seem to be more of the nature of how Goodwim Modified his law when he said;
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i am not entirely familiar with the "law" but as long as the...lol...well, it wasn't a request, it was more of an accusation but whatever. if the hunter lady wants me to forego NAZI analogies, i am willing to try it, although i think the type of analogy is to be considered.
personally, analogy is a big weapon in my arsenal and i try to use it accurately and not fallaciously. i happen to like "the fight of the valkyries" and a good wylie gustafson yodel now and again. i think that people confuse the particulars of the enormity or obscurity of the componants of the analogy the analogies with the accuracy of the analogy...sort of an ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny type deal. indeed, i think the purpose of analogy, its effect, lies in the exaggeration while maintaining the similarity or correlation of quality of the things being analogised.
also, i think goodwin's law speaks specifically to one event and perhaps should, or has been, extended, if jewish people are offended by analogy to the ho.locaust and celtic people are offended by analogy to the starvation and eastern europeans/stalinism or chinese/communism...you get the picture.
personally, i don't have a problem with comparing the starvation of the irish with a school lunch program that allows poor children to go hungry, but that is me.
at any rate, if it offends hunter (and i expect her acknowldgement of the post), i am willing to give it a try. it really isn't aan unreasonable request and it never hurts to be aware of other people's sensitivities.. it really does have to be a two way street though, for it to last.
isn't there some generic, general term for these types of argument anyway.
(another note...i think goodwins's law is very limited in regard to the particular forum in which it is used.)
