:
Originally posted by Canned Gabbiar
LOL, that cartoon was funny. Good one.
Ok, I'll start with: What the heck was that? What's up with this usenet thing? I'm not exactly sure what usenet is, but after reading the definition, and some other stuff at the site, I don't think it is really relevant to what we are actually talking about. You didn't really justify or reinforce your argument with releveant facts but just tried to make it seem like you won by using some stupid "law" that has no meaning.
Plus, I don't this site has anything to do with usenet because:
1) Posts made here are not broadcast to other computers. Computers connect to this database and take data from it.
2) From the articles, Usenet is an entirely different thing altogether.
(Now at this point, I may be wrong and will be quite happy to admit that I was wrong since I don't completely understand this whole usenet buisness. I just took the parts I do understand. Still, most of the following still apply).
Now to the actual point. Using that Godwin's "Law" isn't a way to "win" an argument. For one thing, it doesn't even apply here.
1) It is a "Law" on Usenet.
2) All supposed discussion, chatting etc. "LAWS" are just hogwash and have no real meaning or effect whatsoever.
Plus, you don't really "win" the argument anyway. The other person doesn't tell you honestly that they were wrong. Plus, you don't get anything from supposedly "winning" the argument. Like Searex said (and what MANY people have said):
"Arguing over the net is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded."
In short, don't use a stupid thing like Godwin's "Law" to SUPPOSEDLY "win" or reinforce an argument. It's not.... smart.
Anyway, with that said, I hope we are still on good terms  . I just love Searex's oratory skills (well, writing skills).
|
What? Who said anything about me winning? Who said anything about reinforcing some kind of argument? This is all stuff you have dreamed up in order to appear to be jumping onto SeaRex's bandwagon, and it is not a very honorable way to gain the admiration of anyone.
I'm not arguing for any point, nor am I reinforcing any point or argument for a point. Previous to this post and my last, all my posts have been an expression of my opinion and point of view. And unless you are me, you are in no position to scrutinize my opinion.
Godwin's law is about making sure that nobody is compaired to, or referred to as anything to do with those responsible for the horrific acts during world war II. And it is also about making sure that a conversation does not break down to an argument and/or conversation to do with Nazi's or Hitler, sparked by an anolgy of such. If you can't see the relevance in that, try imagining what it would be like if someone called you Hitler or "Nazi Bitch".
I'm sure you'd want people to cut it out, almost as much as Godwin did when he made that Usenet rule, back when Usenet began in the late 80's.
So you think that is good do you? You think it is good to call people such names? You think it is good to try and insult someone? You think it is good that moderators agreed with the non insulting parts of his post, without noticing the fact that I was called "hitler" and "nazi"? If yes to all, I think you're mad.
The blunt factor of this entire argument, is that if your standpoint is that Saddam Hussien shouldn't have been captured, then you are more of a sadist and nazi than you could ever claim that I am. The end result of this war was that Saddam was captured, and thousands of Iraqi's were saved from oppression and death, if the war had not've happened, Saddam would still be in power, and the world would have one more bad guy. What this world doesn't need is bad guys, and what this world doesn't need even more than bad guys, is people fighting for the rights of badguys, thinking that they are supporting freedom and peace.
It would be naive to just think that by never going to war, there would be no world problems. As Saddam has shown, you don't need to go to war to cause a world issue.