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

Good point, but whatever you do don't say anything negative about the little creep or somebody with the word fish in his name will call you a nazi!

He has a negative effect on US interests. If it harms the prosecution of the war on the Islamists that love to attack us, then he's aiding them every but as much as if he worked for AQ.

He meets any rational definition of a "high value target" to me. He should get invited someplace like Yemen to give a talk, then have an unfortunate accident. ;)

One should never wrestle with a pig in mud. Both parties get dirty and you soon realize that the pig enjoyed it more than you did. :know:

Did anyone notice the subtle title change? XD

I noticed that it still says "sex changes". Any thread that has "sex" in the title is probably interesting, right?

Sadly, I do not have enough information on this topic to form an opinion. However, that will not keep me from +1:yeah:

Touche' :DL

There you go with your high falutin latin stuff again. :D

Excuse me? Did I ever call you a Nazi?
All I did was comment on how you misused Godwin's law in order to not having to provide any counterarguments to a very valid point Catfish raised. "You used the word Nazi so no matter how valid your point is, I win and I don't have to provide any arguments for it."

So now you turn towards even dirtier debating techniques, and falsely accuse me of calling you a Nazi. Well, nice discussing with you. You don't want to (or cannot?) provide any arguments for your claim, so you completely misuse a certain rule so you don't have to. When someone points out your way of "winning" a debate is completely flawed, he's a Nazi.:nope::nope::nope:

Ah so now I'm a pig? A trolling pig?:nope:

the assange issue is a simple one

there are those who think him a hero because he exposed national secrets.

and there are those who consider him a criminal because the exposure of those secrets has resulted in people being killed.

i tend to agree with the second group.

the problem with the concentration camp comment is that he was NOT performing the good deed of exposing the United States as having massive camps in which they were killing Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, handicapped and mentally deficient people.

he WAS exposing vital and important information to the our enemies.

I wonder if the number of people killed as a result of the leaked intel exceeds 0. I do know that the number of people killed by the US that Wikileaks revealed does exceed 0. Therefore I think you'd better change the issue into:

there are those who think him a hero because he exposed national secrets.

and there are those who consider him a criminal because he exposed national secrets.

You make a valid point here.
But he DID expose the US as having killed innocent people (UAV incident anyone?)

I wonder how vital and important most of the revealed information really is in the hands of the enemy.