Reductio ad Terorrism

[Corny]

After seeing in this thread the terrorism card already played at post #3, I think it's about time to stipulate a derivation of Godwin's Law or the better applicable Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Give up your privacy, we need to find the terrorists. Give up your personal freedoms, you are helping the terrorists. Not buying [your-own-nation-here] is helping the terrorists! Non-christian-groups support terrorists! The list of things where terrorism is the killer argument to silence any discussion, put reason aside and act in a panic is long. I tend to believe in the intelligence of the masses, but the last 10 years seem to prove that after all we are just a headless [strike]flock of sheep[/strike] mob.

 

[Nishin]

I think people who always bring that terrorism thing in any discussion are... well... terrorized...

 

[naked gent]

I think people who always bring that terrorism thing in any discussion are... well... terrorized...

I think paranoid is a better word but I'll accept your choice.

 

[justapixel]

None of the measures we've put in would have stopped the 9/11 hijackers.

Not even the hardened and locked cockpit doors????

 

[HenryReardon]

One would think that a moderator would be above starting a baiting thread.

 

[kallipolis]

One would think that a moderator would be above starting a baiting thread.

Hardly, bait. More, enticement.

 

[kallipolis]

I am curious to know how many of our forum friends have actually been deprived of their constitutional rights, as a result of the alleged over reaction of the United States authorities.

May we hear some personal stories?

I am concerned to know whether we are reading political campaigning on this forum, or whether United States citizens are actually living, under the threat of a totalitarian style administration, that intrudes unnecessarily into the private life of innocent people under the pretence of anti terrorist security measures.

 

[kallipolis]

You would never know would you?

Spies are always at least somewhat clandestine...

I am more concerned with the actions of the authorities, than in any speculation that there is a spy listening to your conversation.

Have there been mass arrests? Is there evidence to suggest that terrorist suspects, who are United States citizens, are being denied their constitutional rights?

 

[Corny]

I am curious to know how many of our forum friends have actually been deprived of their constitutional rights, as a result of the alleged over reaction of the United States authorities.

Unfortunately this is not limited to the US, nor was this thread meant for stories (Although I could (and have) share(d in other threads) a few stories) but for using the "but terrorists" argument as a tool in a discussion as described in the wikipedia article about the reductio ad hitlerum.

 

[kallipolis]

Yes there was one guy from Pennsylvania who actually was tied to Al-Qaeda. He was sent to Gitmo.

Was he an Americanborn United States citizen? Was he foreign born? Was he of Middle Eastern, or Asian origin. Can you expand on this matter, so we may learn something new? What is his current status? Is he waiting due process? Has he been released?

 

[Corny]

Ahem *cough*

Unfortunately this is not limited to the US, nor was this thread meant for stories[..] but for using the "but terrorists" argument as a tool in a discussion as described in the wikipedia article about the reductio ad hitlerum.

*points towards the on-topic prefix*

 

[SonOfSlobone]

OK, on-topic, there are a lot of words that usually bring rational discussion to a screeching halt. Terrorism, socialism, fascism, racism, even torture.

None of these words has a definition that's precise enough to be agreed on by all parties in the discussion. So you end up arguing about whether what you're talking about fits the definition, instead of discussing what the actual issue is.

I agree, it's useless. And these discussions are guaranteed never to go anywhere.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not even the hardened and locked cockpit doors????

Arguably.

I am curious to know how many of our forum friends have actually been deprived of their constitutional rights, as a result of the alleged over reaction of the United States authorities.

May we hear some personal stories?

I am concerned to know whether we are reading political campaigning on this forum, or whether United States citizens are actually living, under the threat of a totalitarian style administration, that intrudes unnecessarily into the private life of innocent people under the pretence of anti terrorist security measures.

All of us here have been deprived of those rights -- whether we've suffered any from it or not is another matter.

Since 9/11, our rights have taken hits like most Americans can't imagine. What makes it possible for the government to get away with it is that most of us aren't immediately, directly affected.

 

[opinterph]

One would think that a moderator would be above starting a baiting thread.

Though the opening post in this thread uses one of the posts you added to a recent forum discussion as an example, I do not think it is intended as a personal indictment or criticism. The reference merely illustrates a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in political discourse within the United States and elsewhere. Similar promotion of this same general fallacious concept is evident among a wide variety of individuals who realistically represent the full spectrum of political affiliations. [Link]

… there are a lot of words that usually bring rational discussion to a screeching halt.

… And these discussions are guaranteed never to go anywhere.

I cannot speak for Corny, but it is my impression that Reductio ad Hitlerum is presented as an example of an increasing propensity to use some form of guilt by association to discredit or demean the ideas or credibility of an entity espousing a viewpoint with which the person who introduces the fallacy may disagree. The technique is effective, to the extent that it is not recognized for what it is.

 

[kallipolis]

Though the opening post in this thread uses one of the posts you added to a recent forum discussion as an example, I do not think it is intended as a personal indictment or criticism. The reference merely illustrates a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in political discourse within the United States and elsewhere. Similar promotion of this same general fallacious concept is evident among a wide variety of individuals who realistically represent the full spectrum of political affiliations. [Link]




I cannot speak for Corny, but it is my impression that Reductio ad Hitlerum is presented as an example of an increasing propensity to use some form of guilt by association to discredit or demean the ideas or credibility of an entity espousing a viewpoint with which the person who introduces the fallacy may disagree. The technique is effective, to the extent that it is not recognized for what it is.

It is also pertinent to state that discussion can be prematurely guillotined by simply resorting to the aphorism "Godwins Law" - consequently, the party using such an example, is said to have lost the argument. Nonsense! It is entirely legitimate when discussing government measures that appear to be totalitarian in their nature to refer to similar examples in Nazi Germany.

It would also be entirely legitimate to question the over use of labelling Liberals, as communists, or socialists when they are winning an argument.

Russians and other East Europeans might well feel as abused, as those Germans, who tire of hearing, or reading repetitive reference to Nazi Germany, when discussion revolves around government totalitarian measures.

 

[Corny]

is entirely legitimate when discussing government measures that appear to be totalitarian in their nature to refer to similar examples in Nazi Germany.

The problem here ist that usually the people are not interested in a real discussion comparing the actual measure and nazi measures, it's usually just "but the nazis" "but terrorism", and since nazis/terrorists are evidently bad the other concept must be bad, too. It is just the too easy road to take in a discussion, and merely serves to "win" an argument when you can't back your view with real arguments or are just unable to discuss/explain your view.

 

[kallipolis]

The problem here ist that usually the people are not interested in a real discussion comparing the actual measure and nazi measures, it's usually just "but the nazis" "but terrorism", and since nazis/terrorists are evidently bad the other concept must be bad, too. It is just the too easy road to take in a discussion, and merely serves to "win" an argument when you can't back your view with real arguments or are just unable to discuss/explain your view.

It is entirely legitimate to refer to Nazi Germany, when discussing apparent unconstitutional measures, adopted by government. The Nazi period in Germany offers us a treasure of documentation that enables us to learn lessons, on how government should not treat its people. Of course there were other totalitarian governments, that we may refer too, but German efficiency has granted the world a source of material, that enables us to refer to that period in German history, with a will not to repeat such a human catastrophe.

Having spent two, two month periods, working in Germany this year I am well aware, that Germans are an eminently sensible, mature, and self analytical people, whose practical democratic values are an inspiration for the rest of the world. But we are speaking of an earlier period, that for most Germans, continues to be a burden of great guilt.

I rather suspect that the following thread has annoyed you, and with justification, in my opinion. Clearly the misuse of the Nazi reference in this instance, must be condemned, for it serves no useful purpose, but to abuse. :

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5362594#post5362594

 

[Corny]

Nope, this thread I started almost a day before that. And what you are linking to is just the Nazi stuff together with an ad hominem attack so that he can blank out the facts from my post.
This thread was specifically aimed at the buzzwords terrorist/terrorism and the cultures/techniques of using it malevolently in a discussion to "win" an argument by just silencing the opposition since you cannot be "for" the terorrists.

Meanwhile our "practical democratic" values are under attack through similar means, they are trying hard to establish the framework for internet censorship here through the use of the "we need it to fight child pornography" argument - which of course makes it hard to fight this argument since if you are against it you are for child abuse .. right? But this would be worth a new topic, I just added this to illustrate the point.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

We call them terrorists, but we all know who we really mean...

Here the threat from so-called terrorism has subsided and turned into something else.

 

[kallipolis]

Nope, this thread I started almost a day before that. And what you are linking to is just the Nazi stuff together with an ad hominem attack so that he can blank out the facts from my post.
This thread was specifically aimed at the buzzwords terrorist/terrorism and the cultures/techniques of using it malevolently in a discussion to "win" an argument by just silencing the opposition since you cannot be "for" the terorrists.

Meanwhile our "practical democratic" values are under attack through similar means, they are trying hard to establish the framework for internet censorship here through the use of the "we need it to fight child pornography" argument - which of course makes it hard to fight this argument since if you are against it you are for child abuse .. right? But this would be worth a new topic, I just added this to illustrate the point.

The United States and Germany illustrate my point very well. Both countries excel in public debate of contentious issues. Health care reform in the United States has generated an enormous public debate. Public demand for tightening up control of the Internet has also led to a similar energetic debate in Germany.
Both democracies are to be congratulated. The importance of referring to the extremes of the Nazi period, in Germany, are important to the success of these debates.

I have enormous faith in the eminent common sense of the American, and German peoples to create a working compromise on health care reform, and freedom of expression through the Internet. Never fear public debate. Always fear lack of public debate.