Reminds me of this. :O:

My dear departed Father was fond of a saying, which I shall not repeat here, that addressed the concept that everyone has an opinion just like they have certain body parts. It fits perfectly.


Godwins law. If you have to invoke the nazis then you have already lost the debate. Assange isn't fit to shine a concentration camp survivors shoes.

I agree that he is a moral deprived scumbag, but the case has many holes, signs of policital grandstanding and all sides contradict themselves and each other.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/assanges...204-1aguk.html

As I recall, Godwin's law only describes the correlation between the length of the debate and the likelyhood of Nazis being invoked.

I think you meant 'August's Law'. :D

For once I disagree with Frau on the "Rape" charge. Though the courts seem to be waffling.

It is clear that the night before sex was consensual. That doesn't make rape the next morning okay - far from it. But was it rape? Did he he start while she was asleep? Obviously. But did he know that? Was she responding in her sleep? Did he know that? The only problem she seemed to have with it at the time was the condom question.

I'm not arguing one way or the other. It just seems to me that it's not entirely cut-and-dried. In other words, I don't know. But the behaviour of both of them seems questionable to me.

Two pages isn't sufficient?

Then how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

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

To be fair (and clear), all I was trying to say was that Godwin's Law itself doesn't say anything about losing the argument just by bringing up Hitler. That is arguably true, but Godwin didn't say it.

break it up now old guys:O:

[conspiracy rant]It is really possible that wikileaks falsely leaked false information regarding assange's charges, to get sympathy. After all, they already have enough "street cred"[/conspiracy rant]

A mere detail. Comparing my simple statement that I think Assange is a criminal to stopping concentration camp survivors pretty much counts, as the wiki quote you posted clearly shows:

See? I'm just following established forum tradition here! :DL

Well, here's an older one: YOU'RE WRONG, JUST 'CAUSE I SAYS SO!!! :O:

Thank god, the asteroid barely missed us, we're alive!

Now let's go burn down the observatory so this never happens again.

well, needing to rely on "forum tradition" does say something about the validity of your arguments, doesn't it? IMO it's quite a bit cowardly to do so, and personally I think someone using Godwin's law to try to "win" a discussion should automatically lose it.

No matter in which words you pack it, Godwin's law doesn't say anything about the real validity of ones arguments.

I'm glad you think so. That says a lot about you too.

Simpsons ?

(reminiscing)

Ya know, I remember when this thread was about Assange.

Those were the days. :D