This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WavePart (talk | contribs) at 05:51, 10 June 2010 (→At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:51, 10 June 2010 by WavePart (talk | contribs) (→At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Please sign your messages here using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Archives: A discussion about a fallacious block.
At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law...
... to follow up on your Hitler analogy here: not quite. It's more like saying that if you encounter another failed artist who rode to power on a wave of nationalist and racialist resentment, and he's demanding the Sudetenland, you might in the back of your mind think twice about appeasing him. It may be that the similarities between him and Hitler are just a coincidence, that this second dictator really does want peace in our time, and that you've failed to assume good faith. But it's not unreasonable to notice a certain pattern, and arguably not unreasonable to act on it. MastCell 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uhm, sure, except for it not being at all like that. If I had violated some rules of editing, or standards of conduct, or been anything other than polite, respectful, and trying to discuss toward a NPOV compromise, then perhaps your extension of the analogy would apply. If you read the base rate fallacy page that I linked to that comment, you'll see what I mean in that noticing a particular pattern in the guilty does not say anything about how often that pattern means people ARE guilty. This is basic logic (but unfortunately a named fallacy because the mental error is so commonly made). I encourage you to not be one of the people making this error. WavePart (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)