I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, February 01, 2010

Godwin's Law



Wikipedia describes Godwin's Law as follows:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Godwin's law is so strong that even supporters of Prop. 8, the California ballot proposition that banned gay marriage, have been using Nazi-Hitler analogies, even though it is well known that the Nazis were extremely homophobic. A video titled "Hitler enraged at Yes on 8 Victories in California" is especially amusing. On a more serious note, Ed Brayton's blog has an article with a video of a speech that Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, gave at a pro-Prop. 8 rally. The article has the following excerpt from the video:
.
There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church. And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemoller made his way to the front and boldly said "Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany." Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me." And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day. Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!

Brad Dacus's above analogy is completely inapposite. If Proposition 8 concerns the fate of the soul of America or the souls of Americans, Prop. 8 did not ask voters if they wanted to leave that fate in the hands of a dictator -- Prop. 8 gave the voters the opportunity to determine that fate themselves.

I am especially disappointed in Brad Dacus's speech because the Pacific Justice Institute helped represent the plaintiffs in Caldwell v. Caldwell, a lawsuit that I very strongly supported (it was an establishment clause lawsuit against the Univ. of Calif. and the National Science Foundation for sponsoring a website that endorsed one-sided religious views supporting evolution theory -- this blog has a post-label group of articles about the case).

BTW, I am not a supporter of gay marriage (I support civil unions or domestic partnerships). One of the reasons why I do not support gay marriage is -- ironically -- that I feel that public support for gay marriage is not strong enough to create uniform availability of gay marriage in all the states, and the result is that some gays -- those who live in the states offering gay marriage -- are more equal than the gays in states that do not offer gay marriage.
.

Labels:

7 Comments:

Anonymous Concy said...

"no holding up of comments for moderation"????

I know. The Devil made you do it.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:53:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> "no holding up of comments for moderation"???? <<<<<

I am not going to take that down -- ever.

>>>>> The Devil made you do it. <<<<<

Yes -- a good name for the lousy trolls who sabotaged my no-censorship goal by posting the following kinds of crap:

(1) -- gossip about my private affairs

(2) -- lies about objective facts (one of the worst was a jerk who kept insisting that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was "going to follow the law" while ignoring what the newspaper actually reported -- that Jones said that the school board election results would not affect his decision).

(3) -- comments containing nothing but scoffing

However, unlike a lot of other bloggers, I never ban commenters -- I consider all comments on a case-by-case basis.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I am not going to take that down -- ever. <

Your hypocrisy will be eternal.

Why espouse a policy you don't follow? What is the purpose?

> gossip about my private affairs <

But you have censored things about your public affairs such as matters of court record. You have also, by the same standard, gossiped about yourself.

> lies about objective facts <

You seem to believe that your misinterpretations are valid while the interpretations of others, often seemingly valid to most, are "lies".

> one of the worst was a jerk who kept insisting that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was "going to follow the law" while ignoring what the newspaper actually reported -- that Jones said that the school board election results would not affect his decision). <

You have already lost that argument. Why are you obsessed with it? Can you find another example where anyone has "lied about objective facts"? Yourself excluded, of course.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:24:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Your hypocrisy will be eternal. <<<<<<

It's not hypocrisy, dunghill -- it just shows people the way I wanted the blog to be, and the way that it can't be because of lousy trolls like you.

>>>>>> But you have censored things about your public affairs such as matters of court record. <<<<<<

How can I censor public court records, you stupid fathead.

>>>>>> You have already lost that argument. <<<<<<

How, dunghill?

>>>>>> Why are you obsessed with it? <<<<<<

I am not "obsessed" with it, dunghill -- I bring it up because it is one of the best examples of cluttering up this blog with lies about objective facts.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Concy said...

>>>>>> But you have censored things about your public affairs such as matters of court record. <<<<<<

> How can I censor public court records, you stupid fathead. <

You can't be that dumb! Clearly he was meaning discussion of public court records involving your cases, which you always censor.

Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:32:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> Clearly he was meaning discussion of public court records involving your cases, which you always censor. <<<<<<<

Wrong, you stupid dunghill, I never censor such discussions unless they violate my basic rules: (1) no gossip about my private affairs, (2) no lying about objective facts, and (3) no comments containing nothing but scoffing.

Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

Appears that you don't understand what censorship is either.

Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:14:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home