GROUND RULES: GODWIN'S LAW IS IN EFFECT HERE!

Due to a thread on the NGB that's spiralled out of control (so badly, in fact, I shall not link to it) and into the dark recesses of acrimony, I am hereby officially implementing Godwin's Law.

Here are the basics:

"Godwin's Law

[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the subject. See also Formosa's Law. "

Come to think of it, I'm implementing Formosa's Law as well:

"“The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding to it.” That is, flaming someone with an obvious mental problem can't make it any better. Most often cited on alt.usenet.kooks as a reason not to issue a Kook-of the-Month Award; often cited as a companion to Godwin's Law"

I've been guilty of the latter (albeit not on this blog, but others), but I'm going to make a distinct effort not to wail on the less fortunate from hereon in.

Back to Godwin's Law:

"Debate and controversy


One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's Law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is an apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy," one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true.

Some would argue, however, that Godwin's Law applies especially to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotion as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared, both of which are fallacious in irrelevant contexts. Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything but other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin's Law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface, would seem to be reasonable comparisons."

So, as your host and moderator, I will be using my own best judgement in re: to this.

As I am a proponent, but not an absolutist, when it comes to Free Speech, I feel this is fair to implement these rules, in order to further promote reasonable discussion and/or debate

Questions are most welcome.

The complaint department, however, is down the street.