Doakes’ Law
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Godwin’s Law says the first person to bring up Hitler in a debate, loses. Is there a comparable law for playing the race card?
“The person who attributes opposition to a public policy proposal to racism is presumed to have no valid arguments in support of the public policy proposal and the opponent no longer need participate in the discussion, having won by default.”
Joe Doakes
Como Park
Well, we should at least try to get this generally accepted.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:49 am
The only problem with that proposal, is that to the left, racism IS a valid argument. Hence why it is becoming the more and more prevalent “go to” tactic, which diminishes its credibility as a valid point further and further.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:49 am
It is usually the last grasp when all of their other arguments have been soundly refuted by fact.
It’s also amazing how quickly into the debate it is typically brought in.
But, then again, often those on the right are left with little choice but to debate the ignorant and ill informed whose view is formed either by government dependence, or tied-dyed, sixties enlightened, smug arrogant elitism that all too often renders debate itself useless and moot.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:51 am
Recently in the Chicago area a meeting was held where the gun control proponents compared the NRA to Nazi’s. I don’t think they were prepared for the response.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/veteran-stands-up-for-2nd-amendment-at-chicago-anti-gun-forum/
This is an excellent example of showing up and respectfully dissenting common liberal orthodoxy on their turf.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:28 am
Had I been there, I may have challenged them for freely throwing out the Nazi card and asked them to take a history lesson on how the Third Reich managed to brain wash the majority of the German citizens that the Jews and the related intelligentsia were responsible for all of the country’s ills and that it was OK to burn thousands of books, steal the wealth and possessions of the Jewish citizens, then kill them.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:35 am
I might have asked them if they were familiar with the Nazi’s position on gun control.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:38 am
As the saying goes, if everyone is a Hitler, then perhaps no one was a Hitler.
Meaning if people constantly call a political a opponent “just like HItler” or what ofter is relatively minor political disagreements, than perhaps the Nazi’s weren’t so bad afterall.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:41 am
In July of 1944, the Germans had a fairly small garrison in Paris. It was not considered a major tactical city for Germany or the Allies. But starvation was setting in as what food was coming in from the east (Normandy) was cut off. The French resistance could have probably freed the city on their own, but they had no guns. It was fortunate that influencial people got through the lines to reach American generals and convenced them to liberate Paris (vs bypassing it as they had planned to do).
January 24th, 2013 at 11:47 am
Joe Doakes has a charming consistency in his ability to get the facts wrong.
Godwin’s law does NOT declare the first person to bring up the Nazi card the loser in a debate – although if that was true, then Whiney La Pierre would have lost for his inaccurate statements in a book a while back about Nazis and gun control.
Godwin’s law is only a predictor of the frequency of the Nazi card being played as a correlation to the length of a discussion or argument.
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.” is the actual ‘law’ as framed by Mike Godwin in 1990.
And there is a similar problem with the claims about the racism card; first of all, we clearly don’t have a consensus on what constitutes racism, between the left and the right. Most sane people include racial insensitivity and negative assumptions about a race or ethnic group or subset of people from that group to be a form of racism, while conservatives simply but incorrectly embrace many of those assumptions as fact. I would argue that the right suffers from too broad an endemic problem with racism to be able to detect it reliably, leading them to deny it. Rather the right seems to incorrectly frame what defines race and ethnicity in the first place, which is reflected in the numbers of the right who, for example, oppose miscegenation. The Economists last spring did an excellent article on what an endemic problem racial attitudes are on the right: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/republican-primaries
So given how often racism on the right is a valid issue, I can see how you would want to try to maneuver it into a debate or argument loss, when it is not.
The reality of the Nazis and WW II is that after WW I, the Treaty of Versailles disarmed the Germans, both civilians and their military. The Wiemar Republic subsequently relaxed that gun control a little, and Hitler relaxed it a great deal more in 1938. Hitler did not disarm the Jews, the allies on the winning side of WW I disarmed the Jews, and Hitler simply did not include them in the relaxation of gun control. Had the allies maintained that disarmament on the part of the Germans, it is unlikely there would have been either WW II or the Holocaust. The greater issue was military rearming; not too few guns. The Reich also did not ‘persuade’ the Germans or anyone else to be anti-Semitic; that was already endemic. There is no indication that the Jews wanted to arm themselves had they been allowed, and there is considerable indication by the recognized experts that they DID NOT want guns in 1938, and even that armed resistance would have expedited rather than slowed the actions taken against the Jews in retaliation.
Recognized experts like Raul Hilberg, in “The Destruction of the European Jews”, noted :
The reaction pattern of the Jews is characterized by almost complete lack of resistance. In marked contrast to German propaganda, the documentary evidence of Jewish resistance, overt or submerged, is very slight. On a European-wide scale the Jews had no resistance organization, no blueprint for armed action, no plan even for psychological warfare. They were completely unprepared. . . . Measured in German casualties, Jewish armed opposition shrinks into insignificance. . . . A large component of the entire [destruction] process depended on Jewish participation, from the simple acts of individuals to the organized activity in councils. . . . Jewish resistance organizations attempting to reverse the mass inertia spoke the words: “Do not be led like sheep to slaughter.” Franz Stangl, who had commanded two death camps, was asked in a West German prison about his reaction to the Jewish victims. He said that only recently he had read a book about lemmings. It reminded him of Treblinka.
There are plenty of other experts who attest that the strategy of the Jewish communities was not to provoke even more violence. Beyond that the number of Jews in Germany in 1933 were relatively small, anywhere from 0.5 to 0.7% of the population, so when you take from that small number the even smaller subset of those who would have reasonably desired to be gun owners, the number of guns in question becomes miniscule. Check out the census on file at the national Holocaust Museum for the period, which documents the small number to start with, and then the significant decline from Jews fleeing the country.
The reality is that most of the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust were from other countries than Germany, and were transported from across Europe. If I recall my WW II history, from some 35 countries in total.
Lets not forget either that the rest of Europe, notably Poland, was equally anti-Semitic and that Germany attempted to coerce the Jews within their borders to leave, as did Poland – preferably without a considerable amount of their assets in some cases, long before getting serious about exterminating those Jews and others who remained. There was little ‘persuading’ by the Nazis involved, more just organizing and directing the existing hatred.
As to the amount of firearms in the hands of resistance fighters – are you really that flawed in your knowledge of history? Sheesh.
Joe, you’re a nice man, like Mitch; but your ability to deny facts, or to just get them wrong, is truly astonishing — but consistent, VERY consistent.
If you want to understand history, take your instruction from better scholars than the Whiney La Pierre and the NRA.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:59 am
I was at the Stand With Israel rally at the Jewish Community Center a couple of years ago. There were several hundred anti-Semetic protestors outside (and a couple inside) calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Everyone of those protestors probably voted for Keith Ellison (or Betty McCallum) and Barry Obama.
Of course I have been to areas that have had tight security (public buldings, airports, large sporting events), but that is due to terrorist types wanting headlines. That was the first time I had to go through security because someone may have wanted to harm me personally for my religious beliefs.
January 24th, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Dog, read the “Blood of Free Men” by Michael Neilberg.
January 24th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
DG;tl;dr
January 24th, 2013 at 12:42 pm
What Foot said.
January 24th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
DG Where’s your homework? Lost in the flood?
January 24th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
My grandfather and my uncles (who are Jewish as I) had guns, and fought very hard against the Nazis. You are so full of shit, DogCrap, even your comment is in brown typeface. You want to name all those 35 countries, DogCrap? Or are going to once again pull your usual crap and run routine?
January 24th, 2013 at 1:46 pm
” I would argue that the right suffers from too broad an endemic problem with racism to be able to detect it reliably, leading them to deny it.”
DG, You are one arrogant long winded blowhard, that is a certainty. After reading your dribble (I’ll never get that time back) it’s apparent that you’ve cherry picked interpretations of past events that support your demented hypothesis. Go lay by your dish!!
January 24th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
DG,
I’m sorry. I know you’re an old friend and all, but this is just painful.
I mean, most of what you write is factually wrong. Just plain wrong. And the fact that you leaven your error with so much unearned arrogance (you are, generally, a factual disaster, as has been amply shown in this space) and disrespect for others (your constant thread-jacking and “crap and run” style, especially given the arrogance with which you do it has gotten far beyond off-putting) is getting just a tad trying.
And you know it’s disrespectful and tendentious, because you’ve railed about that exact sort of behavior – and banned it! – on your own blog!
And that’s leaving aside the stuff you write that is just plain…words fail me…demented? Like your bit about Benghazi that Terry pointed out in another post (and, I see, just below).
It’s getting depressing to watch, DG. Seriously.
January 24th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Dog Gone wrote:
Joe Doakes has a charming consistency in his ability to get the facts wrong.
Dog Gone on the BenghazI massacre, 9-13-2012:
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=30407&cpage=1#comment-105254
January 24th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Europe has 35 countries, the US has 57 states.
They stopped teaching geography in schools back in the 60s. It shows.
January 24th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
OK, now I’m curious:
1 – Iceland
2 – Norway
3 – Sweden
4 – Finland
5 – Denmark
6 – UK (let’s not call Scotland and Wales independent just yet)
7 – Ireland
8 – Belgium
9 – Netherlands
10 – Luxembourg
11 – France
12 – Spain
13 – Andorra
14 – Portugal
15 – Monaco
16 – Germany
17 – Austria
18 – Switzerland
19 – Italy
20 – Vatican City
21 – Liechtenstein
22 – Greece
23 – Poland
24 – Czech Republic
25 – Slovakia
26 – Serbia
27 – Montenegro
28 – Bosnia-Herzegovina
29 – Croatia
30 – Lithuania
31 – Latvia
32 – Estonia
33 – Hungary
And there, we’re up to the borders of what is conventionally called “Europe” – and in the case of Poland and the Balkan states, maybe a tad beyond.
Maybe add
33 – Romania
34 – Bulgaria
35 – Moldova?
That’s the only way I see getting to “35”…
January 24th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Whiney La Pierre would have lost for his inaccurate statements in a book a while back about Nazis and gun control.
Cite please. State his inaccurate statements AND concrete proof of his inaccuracy.
Most sane people
We also don’t have a consensus between the right and the left on what sanity is.
negative assumptions about a race or ethnic group or subset of people from that group to be a form of racism
No, most “sane” people recognize that stereotypes exist for a reason, and putting your head in the sand when a “subset of people from a group” perpetuates those stereotypes, is cowardly at best and more realistically, outright deception.
which is reflected in the numbers of the right who, for example, oppose miscegenation.
Cite please.
Who am I kidding? only myself. Dog Crap and Run won’t be back for a few weeks when this post is long past being read anymore.
January 24th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Actually, textbook racism is applying some racial characteristic to individual behavior “He’s pushy because he’s a Jew” or “She’s lazy because she’s black”. Most liberals are guilty of this, as in ‘of course blacks commit more crime! It’s the legacy of racism!’ (which implies that ‘they’ commit more crimes is a racial characteristic of people who are born black in the U.S.)
Dog Gone is guilty of this racism, of course. See any of her remarks regarding ‘flabby, crabby white guys’ on her blog.
January 24th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Oh, and in Dog Gone’s comment after 9-11-2013, note that the one thing she is certain of (“What we DO know is . . .”) is the most outrageously incorrect statement in her comment.
January 24th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
35 circa WWII, Mitch.
January 24th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
the numbers of the right who, for example, oppose miscegenation
I’d love to see “factual” numbers about this taken after 1950. Which seem to be the numbers (if any) that DG is using.
January 24th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15714
33 in 1940 – before annexation of Baltic countries by USSR and including Albania and Andorra.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:07 pm
JPA
I sit corrected!
January 24th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Wikipedia says: ” . . . there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.”
Popular usage? Tradition? Unacceptable! That Doakes is a moron.
.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:50 pm
One can’t help but wonder if mongrel cur is working a well used chew toy among her nether regions while she types her insane papspew.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
I haven’t found any experts more well regarded than Raul Hilberg, but here are two other experts that confirm that the problem with the response among Jews was that they had previously not fought back, historically, and were expecting that the rise in anti-Semitism would subside, as they had previously. Other leading authorities recognized as experts who make the same assertion include Peter Longerich and Timothy Snyder.
We’re talking Jewish resistance 1933 to 1938; late there was more substantial resistance.
I don’t have the list at hand, if you really want me to keep looking to provide it; but not every country provided as many victims in the Holocaust, and yes, you have some of them, but you are missing, just at a glance, Albania and the Ukraine – part of what are counted as countries are in some cases subsumed under other countries when we think of the territories.
I am however perfectly correct that Hitler relaxed gun control, not instituted it.
Of course, you might want to be very careful by what you consider the acts of despotism and tyranny. The laws in 1938 Germany are remarkably similar to the laws in modern Israel, including strict gun control, and little if no access to firearms for groups like the Palestinians. If anything Israel is more strict, including limits to one hand gun for civilian ownership, and then only if you prove a need, either by occupation, or… a different kind of ‘occupation’ in the settlements. And unlike Adolf and the Nazis, there is a restriction on how much ammo you can buy for the one hand gun. I don’t think that makes Israel Nazi-like, any more than the rest of the nations in Europe with strict gun control are Nazi-like. It is a false comparison.
For example, off the top of my head, the only recent gun grabber I can think of is your tea party popsie princess, Sarah Palin, who confiscated the firearms of one of the wacker Aslaskan militia groups, back in 2008 or 2009; I’m not clear if those who had their guns and ammo and equipment confiscated were compensated or not….
But I’d be happy to compare scholarly research with you any time.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Ah, here is the reference to the Holocaust killing people from 35 countries:
Holocaust Map of Concentration and Death Camps”. History1900s.about.com. 16 June 2010.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:58 pm
And Swiftee, one can only wonder what body parts you use to think OR type with…
January 24th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
The law itself doesn’t say so, and the tradition from the internet is weak, and mixed, at best.
But if you want to claim it, shall we take it as read then, given the gun control argument and the references made early on by the NRA to Hitler, that your side has lost?
January 24th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
If any of you would care to outline the basis for a difference over facts, please email them to me at penigma2@hotmail.com, and I promise to respond back to them item by item here. Otherwise I may miss them. As I noted before, I’m not hiding, but I do swing by here only occasionally, so I frequently miss any comments that might be addressed to me.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Penigma’s Chihuahua (aka DG) spewed :”But I’d be happy to compare scholarly research with you any time” When she is, in fact, several months delinquent in doing her homework.
Another demonstrated lie by the Chihuahua.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
And do I really want the Chihuahua to have my email address? Not in this green Earth.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
If any of you would care to outline the basis for a difference over facts,
Like with your statement that Cornish’s bill was “crap legislation” – while showing no evidence you understood it, and even endorsing one of its key provisions?
January 24th, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Getting ready for a minor celebration tomorrow night honoring Robert Burns, although I still haven’t quite been able to cultivate a great love for hagis, OR for black pudding / blood pudding. Still, the traditional forms are part of staying adventurous!
I will find a moment to lift a glass o’ scotch in what I presume to be your general direction, or my best guess at it, and hope you are celebrating your Scots heritage, preferably with digging out your bagpipes and playing them.The poetry is easier to warm to.
However much our politics differ we are alike in two ways; we’re both passionate on subjects, and we’ve each of us come to where we are now from the opposite starting point.
Whatever the differences, Mitch, love you dearly – and enjoy the challenge of a good wrangle. I look forward to anyone who wants to challenge scholarship; you know where to find me.
January 24th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Dog Gone, you do realize that you started with nazi’s immediately after an unrelated paragraph on the nature of godwins law, don’t you?
January 24th, 2013 at 5:40 pm
DG-“most sane people include racial insensitivity and negative assumptions about a race…… to be a form of racism.” When I stopped laughing, I thought, how sad, because she really believes that crap. “Insensitivity and negative assumptions” are so broad as to cover, well, anything- which of course is what most Liberals believe. “Tea Party Popsie Princess….” Thank you for your detailed, well-thought out and reasoned response when talking about Palin. You don’t get paid for this, do you?
January 24th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
To point out a single flaw in DG’s attempt at an argument, the proper comparison isn’t between the percentage of Jews and non-Jews in the German population, it’s between Jews and Nazi’s. Put succinctly, the comparison should be between a minority threatened with genocide and those who would carry out that genocide.
DG has epistemology problems, as usual.
January 24th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
I was going to counter-argue against “dog gone”. If I was to do so legitimately, I would under my full secular name on my blog. “dog gone” will probably not reveal her real name, therefore, it’s moot. One look at her blog and her constant posting of rant-level political cartoons indicates she doesn’t want to engage in that fabled “open, honest discussion about race”…or anything else for that matter. She will continue to post her op-ed columns, the rest if you will sometimes make a joke of it.
After her comments recounting of the history of European Jewry and the “disarmed” Palestinians Arabs, I do not think of her as any joke. Congratulations, “dog gone”, you’ve made the grade.
This is the most egregious:
“The laws in 1938 Germany are remarkably similar to the laws in modern Israel, including strict gun control, and little if no access to firearms for groups like the Palestinians. If anything Israel is more strict, including limits to one hand gun for civilian ownership, and then only if you prove a need, either by occupation, or… a different kind of ‘occupation’ in the settlements. And unlike Adolf and the Nazis, there is a restriction on how much ammo you can buy for the one hand gun. I don’t think that makes Israel Nazi-like, any more than the rest of the nations in Europe with strict gun control are Nazi-like. It is a false comparison.”
First you claim Jewish gun laws are stricter than Nazi Germany’s, therefore much worse than Nazi gun laws; you also assert that even the Nazis didn’t restrict ammunition like the Jews – again implying the Jews are worse than the Nazis. You then contradict yourself and negate your implication the Jews have gun laws that are worse than the Nazis.
The reason why Palestinian Arabs living in the territories would not be trusted with firearms in Israel is twofold. First, they are not citizens of Israel. They have no rights in Israel as citizens. Second – and this is important , “dog gone” – it is the intent of the holocaust-denying, progeny of the Nazi-collaborating Islamists to destroy the Jewish homeland and slaughter every single Jew they find.
Settlements, “dog gone” are nothing more than Jewish houses, towns, villages located in Judea and Samaria. Jews don’t need your permission or the permission of the world to built on Jewish land. You have no say in the matter.
January 24th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
There are two main explanations for the Holocaust.
The first says that it was an accident of history. The intense, wide-spread antisemitism (‘endemic’ is DG’s word) of the German people in the 1920’s and the 1930’s was harnessed by a charismatic, nationalist leader. Genocide was the result. It was a unique historical event, and if we adopt modern values, it will never happen again.
The second says that the Holocaust was the result of a modern state pursuing its goals in what it believed to be a rational manner. “Everything within the State, nothing outside of the State, nothing against the State”, as Mussolini put it.
A study of history tends to support the second argument.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:12 am
Terry,
Why choose?
Daniel Goldhagen spelled out a case that there was in German culture a history of anti-semitism that was lurking underneath the German “Volk” tradition; Hitler was able to exploit that to help his rise to power; he then used the power of the state to actually carry the elimination out.
Let’s just say the debate is ongoing among people who study German society.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:47 am
The numbers on those on the right who believe miscegenation should be illegal are from the last election; there were multiple polls showing it. The numbers I used were from a gallup poll fairly late in the campaign.
The ADL – the position of the Anti-Defamation League for those who don’t recognize the acronym, supports my contention:
http://blog.adl.org/civil-rights/holocaust-gun-control-debate
The charged political debate over gun control in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting continues to be tainted by inappropriate invocations of Hitler, Nazis, and general Holocaust imagery.
These comparisons, made by political pundits on national news programs as well by others outside politics, are not only misplaced and offensive, relying on factually incorrect premises and exaggerations, but also deflect attention away from an important national discussion.
One analogy suggests that President Barack Obama is somehow reminiscent of Hitler because of his gun control proposals. For example, on January 9, the homepage of The Drudge Report featured an image of Hitler and Stalin with the caption “WHITE HOUSE THREATENS ‘EXECUTIVE ORDERS’ ON GUNS.”
A similar comparison was made by Ohio State Board of Education President Debe Tehrar, who posted a number of pro-gun and anti-Obama messages on her Facebook page, including a photo of Hitler with the caption: “Never forget what this tyrant said: ‘To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.’ — Adolf Hitler.”
Another common theme that has emerged in recent weeks is that if only the victims of the Holocaust had better access to guns, the Nazi regime would not have been able to systematically murder so many people.
For example, Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano made this argument in a January 10 column on FoxNews.com. Napolitano wrote that, “If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.”
Individuals on the fringes of the political debate also have weighed in with this narrative. In a January 15 column for the website WorldNetDaily, disgraced former Major League Baseball pitcher John Rocker wrote that “the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler’s Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms.”
It should be noted that the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state. When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Uprising and elsewhere, but could not stop the Nazi genocide machine. Gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did.
There were too few Jews in Germany for the 1938 gun control law to make the slightest difference, but in any case, there was not an effort to use violent resistance. What DID occur were massive immigrations out of not only Germany but other parts of Europe which were similarly anti-Semitic. The primary sources of the era document pretty thoroughly that what the Nazis of that period wanted to do was to drive the Jews out of Germany, not kill them; and more than half of those in Germany left, while the other half chose to try to wait it out in hopes of a regime change and that the anti-Semitism would subside. The idea of extermination, the ‘Final Solution’ came later in the war, which roughly tracks with the response of armed violence to the Nazis, but most of that was in conjunction with cooperation from the Allied military forces attempting to work with resistance groups.
As to my comments about old, white, flabby and crabby men, if you wanted to fault me on criticizing a very narrow demographic, which refers only to a number of members of a specific organization, I think you would have a hard time making that stick as agism, sexism, or racism. Rather it is a repeated comment which is used to describe a group who see themselves as rather distinctly different, Rambo-esque, rather than as they really are. So it is a comment, taken out of context, which refers to a subjective self image contrasted with an objective view.
I’m still waiting to see any of you pop up with something as definitive as the scholarly work of the late great Raul Hilberg, or his three volume work on the subject of the Holocaust, which is supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject. Hilberg was an Austrian-born American Jew, who lived through the period of WW II, having been born in Vienna in 1926, coming to the U.S. in 1939 after having personal experience with the Nazis terrorism of his community and his family.
So if you’re going to try to present Hilberg as an Anti-Semite or as anything other than the best word on the topic, good luck with that.
You’re premise about guns relating to some kind of crazy oppression is nuts. Your grasp of the distinctions between what is race and what is ethnicity is so badly out of date it is pathetic; your essential concept of it is flawed, which is what makes it so easy to identify as a bias.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:59 am
And this paragraph is rambling nonsense . . .
You’re premise about guns relating to some kind of crazy oppression is nuts. Your grasp of the distinctions between what is race and what is ethnicity is so badly out of date it is pathetic; your essential concept of it is flawed, which is what makes it so easy to identify as a bias.
January 25th, 2013 at 10:18 am
There were too few Jews in Germany for the 1938 gun control law to make the slightest difference, but in any case, there was not an effort to use violent resistance.
You are so obtuse DogCrap, words fail. Reality means nothing to you. Having a reasoned conversation with you is impossible – at the end one inevitably finds out you do not know what +/- means. BTW, some of the most virulent anti-semites are Jews, I am afraid. Oh, and have you located Pinal county on the map yet? Get back to your homework, you mangy cur!
January 25th, 2013 at 10:50 am
DG, your definition of racism is bizarre:
What, exactly, is the definition of ‘racial insensitivity? Ignoring race? Not ignoring race?
If I have positive assumptions about a group of people ‘Gosh, Koreans are hard-working!’ is that racism?
Where did you get your definition from? An EEOC pamphlet?
January 25th, 2013 at 11:02 am
As to my comments about old, white, flabby and crabby men, if you wanted to fault me on criticizing a very narrow demographic, which refers only to a number of members of a specific organization, I think you would have a hard time making that stick as agism, sexism, or racism. Rather it is a repeated comment which is used to describe a group who see themselves as rather distinctly different, Rambo-esque, rather than as they really are. So it is a comment, taken out of context, which refers to a subjective self image contrasted with an objective view.
Well, no, DG. It’s nothing to do with “self-image”. It’s your demeaning, derogatory stereotype about those you disagree with. It’s you. It’s a cheap bit of rhetoric to degrade and dehumanize those you disagree with. Don’t dignify it as anything but.
I’m still waiting to see any of you pop up with something as definitive as the scholarly work of the late great Raul Hilberg, or his three volume work on the subject of the Holocaust, which is supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject. .
Leaving aside that the entire subject is a thread-jack, playing “my scholar is bigger than your scholar!” is “appeal to authority”, which is a logical fallacy. Debate Hilberg’s facts and assertions; don’t compare subjective (and self-serving) measures of standing; least of all should you throw out a subjective standing as a dispositive fact in and of itself. Caliber of sources can lend credibility to an argument, but it’s only a loan. The actual facts presented have to do the actual convincing.
And for all the (I’m sorry to say it) arrogance with which you proclaim yourself as the Mistress of Fact, you’re been found sorely wanting over and over. Hilberg may be an expert; you, surely, are not.
January 25th, 2013 at 11:03 am
BTW, DG? Since you’re apparently paying attention:
Why was Cornish’s Stand Your Ground bill “crap legislation”?.
I honestly believe you were reciting a lefty chanting point, and that you never really knew why.
Feel free to correct me on that.
January 25th, 2013 at 11:17 am
When I used to debate with DG, one of the greatest aggravations I experienced was her habit of rhetorically jumping around, as though every topic was both connected and disconnected as required to make some strange point. The plain meaning of phrases shifted, as in:
Might be followed by:
You’ll go crazy trying to tease anything like consistent argument out of that mess.
I do think that argument from authority is valid, but only if the people discussing the topic agree that the source is authoritative — and even then, context is critical. I don’t trust Dog Gone to accurately present the arguments of any so-called ‘authority’.