Oh, sure. That's what They want you to believe. BTT.
True... but don't think the groundwork isn't being laid that could bring us to very similar conditions.
this guy is obviously a nazi lover...
oops. i lost the argument.
t
I believe in greater accuracy, thus:
read
No comparison between the two. Hitler wore his (adopted) nation’s military uniform and served with distinction.
You mean all history didn’t start on September 1 1939? Who’da thunk it?
The author’s premise seems to be that since the Weimar Republic disarmed Germans, not Hitler, it is ok to disarm Americans.
Rubbish.
Incorrect on the facts and the intent.
We have a surveillance state with black-clad shock troops intended to intimidate the common populace. We have a leader and a party that flouts the law. We have a leader who stirs up racial hatreds, on purpose. We have the attempt to disarm the populace. We have a rapidly-deteriorating economic situation.
In fact, my main problem is seeing the DIFFERENCES between Modern America and Germany in the 1930's.
There is absolutely nothing unreasonable, unfair, or misleading, in drawing comparison between contemporary demagogues and one of the master demagogues in Western History. Indeed, comparisons to previously successful salesmen for tyrannical Government, is the most natural measure for analyzing contemporary threats to liberty.
Put another way, does anyone really believe that contemporary demagogues do not study the techniques--the methodology of others who succeeded?
We all need to be aware of how history's Robespierre's, Lenins, Trotsky's & Hitlers managed to motivate mobs in the directions that they did. Understanding how freedom is lost is just as important as studying how it has been gained.
William Flax
Firstly, Godwin’s Law is not the longer the argument the more likely is Hitler’s mention. The longer the argument the more likely it is anything’d be mentioned, I’d think. Point is the longer the internet argument the more certain is the appearance of a Nazi analogy.
Secondly, I don’t believe in the corollary. Believe it or not, sometimes Hitler is relevant. Argumentative fallacies are arguments which are never true, not ones that usually aren’t true and are annoying and repetitive. Even were it fallacious we couldn’t make it so that the side invoking it always loses. Human argumentation isn’t that rulebound or objective. People try to declare the first to go ad hominem the loser, too, sometimes. But there’s no reason why one bad argument should spoil the whole bunch.
Invocation of Hitler suggests you might be losing the argument, depending on the context. But it can’t mean you definitely have lost. That presumes a judgement beyond all earthly power.
I adamantly refute that statement and offer proof.
Read the article at the following link and tell me none of it sounds familiar. Tell me America isn't within a country mile of what is described.
Ehr Kumt.
Godwin?
Godwin sounds like a nazi.
The argument that goes so far as to invoke Hitler is an argument that has gone too far. By the time the Hitler reference occurs the casual observer will have concluded that both participants are idiots.
The Bible covers this with considerable clarity and wisdom.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
That sage advice is just another way of saying, "don't argue with an idiot". The point is that when you decide to argue with an idiot no one listening will be able to tell which of you is the idiot.
Some earlier advice from Proverbs suggests that you not engage in an argument with a fool in the first place.
Proverbs 14:7 "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge".