Some &*$###basterd shot a cat with a crossbow

[GotGusto]

For what it's worth, I support MANY things that Hitler did. But I also disagree with MANY things he did.

 

[GotGusto]

Yeah, you're saying that since the Nazis did something, it's a perfect illustration of something we SHOULDN'T do.
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Of course, it has nothing to do with anything.

Nope, not at all. Sorry.

Let me reiterate: I support many things the Nazis did so your attempt at an argument is squashed.

I don't view history through liberal tinted glasses like you and so many others do.

 

[GDLLover]

For the record I support animal rights, I also don't believe they are more important than human rights.

To show a bizarre case see below, warning this story may be disturbing to some.

Many years ago there was a cat in the neighbourhood that stayed outdoors most of the time. In the winter it would seek shelter under cars to keep out of the snow and ice. One day this lady got in her car and found that after starting it there was much noice and the car stopped. Opened the hood and found much damage to radiator, fan, alternator, air conditioner, etc to the tune of $1500. Obviously the cat had fallen asleep in the engine compartment. What happens now, does the lady get charged with cruelty to animals or does the owner of the cat pay for the car repairs?

In fact they called it a wash because they were friends.

GDL

 

[GotGusto]

Terrible, terrible effort at reductio ad Hitlerum. A true Godwinite cringes at your pitiful attempt.

Oh, and: "I don't view history through liberal tinted glasses like you and so many others do." = argumentum ad hominem

I don't even know what a "Godwinite" is. I don't care to go back and forth with you about Godwin's Law or not because you and others who have posted Godwin's Law don't even seem to understand what it is.

Godwin's Law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Godwin's Law is NOT the same as reductio ad Hitlerum. The former is an observation, the latter is a fallacy in logic.

 

[sibannac]

For what it's worth, I support MANY things that Hitler did. But I also disagree with MANY things he did.

For what it's worth, lets test your sense of history and why don't you elaborate on what you think he did good in and what things you didn't think did so hot in. I find that a lot of Hitler apologists make these kind of statements to justify rather repugnant views and then hide behind " I don't get fooled by the actual written/oral history of the time".

Keep in mind that tyrants, actually any of the 20th Century tyrants take credit for things they actually didn't do.

So Lets see your laundry list and try real hard not to pretend your some intellectual superior being, because really from what I'm reading so far you're in way over your head.

 

[Ironhead]

My dog passed away in '99, he was 16.
Once while I was walking him this fucking jerk down the street threatened to posion him if he ever caught him on his lawn. I handed the leash to my friend and walked up to him on his front step. He smiled thinking I would not do anything, while I "clocked" him right in the mouth. He went to a knee and looked up and I said "I did not quite catch that, could you repeat please". He said sorry and put up one hand.


Gotgusto, et al, you just do not understand.

 

[GotGusto]

Oh, and: "I don't view history through liberal tinted glasses like you and so many others do." = argumentum ad hominem

An observation, more accurately.

Precisely.
Your argument was fallacious - it was a reductio ad Hitlerum. The fallacy is on YOUR end, not on the person who is arguing reductio ad Hitlerum. lol
Godwin's Law arose out of people trying to use reductio ad Hitlerum as an argument, despite it being a logical fallac.
Clear now? Reduction ad Hitlerum is a logical fallacy, as is argumentum ad hominem.

I've already explained my point, why I made it, and why it's not an example of reductio ad Hitlerum.

Your attempt at an argument provided nothing useful to the discussion.

This is what concerns me. That you don't think it's useful.

 

[GotGusto]

For what it's worth, lets test your sense of history and why don't you elaborate on what you think he did good in and what things you didn't think did so hot in. I find that a lot of Hitler apologists make these kind of statements to justify rather repugnant views and then hide behind " I don't get fooled by the actual written/oral history of the time".

Keep in mind that tyrants, actually any of the 20th Century tyrants take credit for things they actually didn't do.

So Lets see your laundry list and try real hard not to pretend your some intellectual superior being, because really from what I'm reading so far you're in way over your head.

LOL, now I'm a Hitler apologist. I don't know where you pulled that from. Am I way in over my head? I'm just glad I'm here and you're someplace else.

He has no clue. His attempt to pretend that the Nazis were all great environmentalists and animal lovers was actually disproven in the very link he gave.
Besides, the whole argument was a reductio ad Hitlerum. And a bad one, at that.
Don't bother.

First, I've never claimed that the Nazis were all great environmentalists, nor did I claim that they were all great animal lovers. LOL

Secondly, the fact that Nazis strengthened and then relaxed some animal 'rights' laws because they believed there was a need for animal experimentation doesn't disprove anything.

You seem well versed in Latin. Now try reason.

 

[GotGusto]

So, what is it? My comparison to Nazi Germany laws (never to Hitler) means that I'm a Hitler apologist OR a Hitler hater?

I'm not clear on where you guys stand on this. You're both very confusing.

 

[GotGusto]

Nope, wrong again. You were attempting to discredit my arguments not by attacking them, but by slandering me. Argumentum ad hominem, precisely.
Next?

You had no argument. What was I to do? I take shots when I can, for kicks.

And I've pointed out, repeatedly, why it's a perfect example of reductio ad Hitlerum. You obviously just don't understand. Read both wikilinks again, and try harder.
Next?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could have provided other examples but the reason for using Nazi Germany is because it is an extreme example and one that is very much part of public conciousness.

ANY society that speaks to 'animals rights', and more importantly which has citizens who believe animals lives are worth more than human lives is a society that is not as healthy as it could be.

I've pointed out, repeatedly, why it was a perfect example of reductio ad Hitlerum, and therefore a logical fallacy.
Case closed.

So I guess I'm a 'Godwinite'?

Get the fuck outta here.

 

[GotGusto]

So, we're left with the fact that your post pointing us to read about animal welfare in Nazi Germany meant ... nothing? It was a simple reductio ad Hitlerum?
Good, we agree. That's the point I was trying to make all along.
You don't seem particularly strong where logic is concerned, but ......
Next?

How many more times must I elaborate on this for you?

Go easy on your 'next' button.

I have no idea what you meant by your post. TRULY, no idea.

This much was clear since you've went off on a tangent not knowing what you're talking about when addressing the post.

Except that it was probably a really weak, poor reductio ad Hitlerum, that you didn't think through very clearly, and then you got into an argument about things you hadn't heard of before. That much seems crystal clear. LOL

Refer to your previous sentence:

I have no idea what you meant by your post. TRULY, no idea.

case closed

 

[GotGusto]

ad hominem: go hug a tree after getting an A+ in logic class from your left liberal professor.

 

[Ironhead]

GotGusto, start your own Nazi thread please. We here on this thread chose to feel for an injuried animal.

 

[GotGusto]

There's nothing to disagree about. You pointed to a link that talked about something the Nazis did, and said it was bad. This is the DEFINITION of reductio ad Hitlerum, which I just educated you about today.

You got it reversed. I said something is wrong, and then posted a link. The link was for illustrative purposes, it was not the core argument.

I don't *necessarily* disagree.
Still, you haven't done ANYTHING to prove this argument, other than a terrible reductio ad Hitlerum. All your link did was say that some of the top Nazis were, off and on, in favour of animal rights. So? ... What was that supposed to mean? ... Think hard. ... Done? ... Right - it meant nothing. It was a reductio ad Hitlerum.

My argument cannot be "proven". People can choose to express humanity or not. I believe it is better to be humane (root word 'human') to one anotehr than to treat animals as if they were equals or superiors, because 1) they are neither our equals or superiors and 2) because they are not equals or superiors putting them on a pedestal cannot be seen as anything but a distortion of reality. The consequences of rampant distorted thinking is Nazi Germany.

It's not that animal rights led to Nazi Germany. It is merely one more warped concept subscribed to by the warped society that was Nazi Germany.

You first.
You're a Godwinite and don't even believe or understand what that means. Just admit that you hadn't heard of these things before today, and just looked them up for the first time.
LOL
Pity.

I had never heard the term Godwinite before. Having been on internet boards for 6+ years, I'm well aware of the observation formerly called Godwin's Law. This isn't the first discussion of Nazi Germany that I've been involved in. I mean, do you really think this is news to me? LOL

 

[glaeken]

Anyone who hurts a defenseless animal should be punished.

Unfortunately there are so many stories like this that everyone has heard of at least one. So it makes me wonder why any responsible owner would allow their pets to run free and put them out there for the freaks who might hurt them.

Yeah, I know in a perfect world no one would hurt an animal but here in the real world they do.

 

[GotGusto]

All you said was that "Hitler supported animal rights".

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Sorry dude, you're going to have to quote me where I wrote, "Hitler supported animal rights".

It seems to me you're arguing with yourself, all the while believing you're winning. lol

Over-educated perhaps.

 

[GotGusto]

ROTFL
More awesome arguments.

BTW, my logic professor was a hard right-winger. You just can't stop being wrong, can you? ROTFL
You were right about my A+, though. hehe

As they say, education isn't what it used to be.

 

[GotGusto]

Illustrative of what? That some societies enact laws to protect animals?
That can't POSSIBLY be the extent of it. Because that doesn't do anything to prove your point. LOTS of societies protect animals. Almost EVERY enlightened, modern society protects animals. So? All you seem to be saying you were doing is show "hey, here's a society that did something about animal protection!"
The Nazis!
LOL

Like I said, you keep talking about "proving" my points. I think you mean 'supporting' my points. No?

Let me rephrase your statement to make it more accurate:

'Almost EVERY decaying modern Western liberal society champions animal rights.'

No, you meant to show how the Nazis did something and it's therefore fucked up. You didn't even bother to say anything, just pointed to the link. CLASSIC Reductio ad Hitlerum in action. LOL The fact that you now deny it is even funnier.

My explanation appears insufficient for you to either understand or accept.

Right, you just said it.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
"The consequences of rampant distorted thinking is Nazi Germany."
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Thanks for coming, folks, it's been a blast.

Reductio ad Hitlerum: "If Hitler supported X, then supporting X must be wrong."

My argument: X is wrong because it is irrational - let me show you an example of a whackjob society that supported something similar

Of course, you've still done NOTHING to prove your argument that it's foolish, and "rampant distorted thinking" to believe that animals should be protected by law in our society. Unless you want to admit that you WERE making a reductio ad Hitlerum. 'Cause, if not, you've said nothing. Not one thing.

Here you are with your proofs again. Your attempts to look smart are wearing thin.

And, of course your point can be proven. By making rational arguments. Like any point someone cares to argue.
Duh?

lol. Let's see you prove that animal rights is a good thing or that animal rights even exists in the phylosphoical sense.

Right, and the fact that it was warped is PROVEN by the fact that it was so heavily enforced in Nazi Germany. (False, but that's the point you're trying to make.)
Reductio ad Hitlerum

No. The argument and reasoning for it stands alone. The Nazi Germany illustration merely supports the argument, it doesn't prove anything. I can take examples of things in Nazi Germany that were good. This wouldn't prove that the Nazis were good.

Yes.
Yes, I think it is.
I think you had only tangentially heard of Godwin's Law, and had NEVER heard of reductio ad Hitlerum.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be so foolishly denying what you did. LOL
Man, I give you points for being funny.

I'm happy to amuse you. And likewise.

 

[GotGusto]

You posted the wiki link, not me. Did you even read the link you posted?
You're coming across as being totally dense, now.
Your link, unadorned by corollary argument, was:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany"
the first sentence of which is: "There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany[1] and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals.[2] Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal protection."
Next?

And? lol

No, it's pretty clear I am winning.
LOL

A win against yourself is still a win, I guess. Congrats.

Another argumentum ad hominem.
But I'd MUCH rather be overeducated (whatever that means - another poke at the "liberal elite"? ROTFL), than totally uneducated.

I'd rather be learned than educated. Or as my smart uneducated friends would call 'schooled'.

Being educated is better than nothing, though. Good on ya.

 

[GotGusto]

Have you never heard the phrase "to prove one's point"?
Wow.
LOL
Anyway, it's a perfectly acceptable phrase in the english language. Something else you've learned today. I'll send you a bill.

You're a good kid. You just need to learn to be more precise .

You're incapable of making anything more accurate, as I've already demonstrated.

I would say you're unwilling or incapable of understanding. Perhaps brush up on your reading chops.

The word "decaying" is a circular argument. It begs the question.
"Why is this modern Western liberal society 'decaying'? Because it champions animal rights. Why do they champion animal rights? Because they're decaying."
Sorry - not even close to defending, proving, or supporting anything you've said.

The word "decaying" isn't a ciricular argument. It's a word, not an argument. Like I said, you're a good kid and you mean well.

Secondly, modern Western liberal societies are decaying for myriad reasons. Animal Rights is an example of the rot taking hold.

Totally insufficient to support your position.
As I've been saying.
The only argument you even TRIED to make was a logical fallacy - reductio ad Hitlerum. Since the Nazis supported animal rights, and they were twisted, there's a good possibility that support for animal rights is twisted, too.
LOL
Logical fallacy.
Next?

You've missed my argument yet again. Animals rights (as far as putting them as equals or above humans which is what my family members have done which I wrote on page one) is wrong because it is inhumane and what I would argue irrational. It's no surprise that the Nazis supported something similar. The Nazi illustration isn't the crux of the argument at all.

Right.
So, you're either reductio ad Hitlerum -ing things, or you're petitio principii -ing things. "X is wrong because X is wrong".
Neither works.
You're really doing both.
You've done nothing to help yourself.

Incorrect. "X is wrong because it is inhumane and irrational". You can argue with me whether it's inhumane or not or irrational. My position is that it is.

Nope.
Your continued argumentum ad hominems reveal the weakness of your position.

You're guilty of ad hominems of your own, but I don't raise them because to me they're inconsequential. Arguments peppered with ad hominems may not be preferred in civilized discourse, but they do not change the inherent strength of an argument.

Who even said that's my position? ROTFL
I was pointing out that your (pathetic) attempt at supporting your position was a (feeble) reductio ad Hitlerum, as somebody else pointed out, but that you didn't seem to properly understand. Your continued ignorance of the point proves the case.

I didn't say it was your position. I was pointing out that you cannot prove these things. They are positions supported by arguments and illustrations. It's not mathematics.

HOW does it support the argument? You haven't said, yet, and it's the crux of your argument? It's amazing that you haven't figured that out yet.

I did so on page one. I stated that it is irrational and inhumane to treat and protect animals the same as humans.

Precisely.
Just as merely pointing to the Nazis and something they supported, as you did, doesn't prove that something was bad.
I'm glad you're finally coming around.

Arthur, are you still following?

If you've been amused by this, I guess ignorance truly is bliss.

Touche