Kerry's Doom

[wkelly91]

I think Goodwin's law should be extended to cover all sorts of hyperbole from "Liberals hate free speech"

Don't agree with that one.

to "Personally they deserve what happens to them. If thats a beheading of one of there family members, so be it!"

I do agree with that one being hatefull

[Tavish]

I don't know about that - I was simply using hyperbole to show why hyperbole has no place in a political discussion.

It may have been a very valid point. All that Goodwin's Law states is that it was inevitable the connection would be made. Once it is made, the debate (almost without exception) will deteriorate into either a discussion about Nazis or a discussion about Goodwin's Law. There isn't much else you can do except killfile the topic.

I think Goodwin's law should be extended to cover all sorts of hyperbole from "Liberals hate free speech" to "Personally they deserve what happens to them. If thats a beheading of one of there family members, so be it!"

There is an offshoot of Goodwin's law that talked about Libertarianism. Don't remember the exact thesis but it was something like every newsnet discussion is about Libertarianism, anytime a discussion shifts focus it will undoubtly return to the topic for fuel. There is quite a few people who are pushing for Bin Laden to be added to Goodwin's Law, but he is just the flavor of the week and doesn't destroy a thread nearly as much as a Hitler reference.

Things like "Liberals hate free speech" can usually just be dismissed as trolls.

[wrveres]

"Personally they deserve what happens to them. If thats a beheading of one of there family members, so be it!"

yeah that one was a little over the top ...

whom ever said that should probablly take that back ....




OK, done!

[matmat]

What is the Goodwin's law equivalent on a Neo-Nazi bulletin board?

[GW]

It is 60 years since his death and Hitler is still reviled as one of the most evil and hated men of history!

I agree, Hitler was an evil person and deserves to be hated. Ironically, he was fully elected by a democratic system in German back then!

That is a bit of a stretch to say he was fully elected by a democratic system. The two leading political parties had been outlawed after the Reichstag fire ( the leaders of those parties were also arrested ), the Brown Shirts openly attacked those opposing Hitler, and he still only managed well below 50% of the popular vote. It was a democracy only in the vaguest sence.

So how did Hitler win the election by getting below 50% of the popular vote? He did win the election.

Did they have an electorial college system similar to the US?

[Absolutely Adequate]

Well, I'm not a history teacher, but as I remember it there were at least half a dozen viable political parties splitting the vote at the time.

I'm not looking it up, but maybe someone can confirm that?

[Tavish]

There were over 20 political parties that people could vote for, the Nazi party received the most votes but not really close to a majority. The two strongest parties had been outlawed by Hitler using the power granted to him after the Reichstag fire. The election was little more than a formality in turning Germany into a dictatorship.

[matmat]

There were over 20 political parties that people could vote for, the Nazi party received the most votes but not really close to a majority. The two strongest parties had been outlawed by Hitler using the power granted to him after the Reichstag fire. The election was little more than a formality in turning Germany into a dictatorship.

something like that. I still don't understand why some countries allow for plurality of votes to win. Some have fixed this by having a run-off election.

[stomperrob]

There were over 20 political parties that people could vote for, the Nazi party received the most votes but not really close to a majority. The two strongest parties had been outlawed by Hitler using the power granted to him after the Reichstag fire. The election was little more than a formality in turning Germany into a dictatorship.

something like that. I still don't understand why some countries allow for plurality of votes to win. Some have fixed this by having a run-off election.

Here in Canada we're in the midst of an election right now with 5 parties in the fight - according to the polls, it looks like the party who wins will have less than 40 percent of the vote, maybe even less than 35 percent and yet they will dictate to the 65 percent who didn't vote for them - great system!

[LBJackal]

Yes but they won't have a lot of MP's in the house of commons. Since it isn't a majority, they don't have as much control.