TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:Now, as at least 6 million of my people were murdered by the Nazi's, so forgive me if I don't equate orders not to reveal one's homosexuality in the military, with orders to murder innocent civilians by the millions at the same level of "unlawful." I'm sure I have a prejudice here. I realize that DADT is a major rights issue for gays, and I'm not trying to downplay that. I am simply saying it is up to congress and/or the courts to decide it's legality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
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 1989 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." In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

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 argue that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, 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.

Hoi Polloi wrote: For example, 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.

b322da wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote: For example, 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.

I agree wholeheartedly, Hoi. But I cannot close without observing that for both personal and professional reasons I am the last person in the world to equate the Holocaust with DADT. I think I made it clear earlier, or intended to, that I have no strong personal opinion on the substance of the DADT quesion. I stepped into this thread to bring up Major Witt's case, and observed that in my opinion the legal issue if/when her case gets to the Circuit will likely be the constitutionality of the application of DADT to her case by the Air Force, not the legality or illegality of DADT in general. My discussion with another member in which I reluctantly, with poor judgment, brought out your "internet forum no-no," as an extreme example, dealt with the definition of an unlawful order, not a discussion of the merits or demerits of DADT. I honestly think there has been some gross misunderstanding here, which is likely to occur when a thread wanders off-topic, and two or more topics get all mixed up. It is not always clear which of the various topics a person is addressing. I willingly accept my share of the blame for that, and I clearly deserve it. If this has boiled down to a public exchange of resumes your observation that the thread is finished is confirmed. Thank you, Hoi.

Elmo

G26ster wrote:
Elmo: I appreciate your point that this thread went off topic, and I share in responsibility for that. That is where we got into "lawful" orders, and/or "unconstitutional" regulations. I too was in no way taking sides in the DADT policy. If the thread continues, it should be limited to Major Witt's case and the specifics of that case. Sorry for helping push it in another direction.

G26ster wrote:

bdickens wrote: Some of you seem to forget that soldiers are required to disobey orders that are illegal and/ or immoral.

A soldier is required to follow "lawful" orders and regulations. The definition of a unlawful order is one where the one being ordered is required to commit an unlawful act. What part of DADT is illegal or immoral? I don't think I "forgot" anything.

bdickens wrote:

G26ster wrote:

bdickens wrote: Some of you seem to forget that soldiers are required to disobey orders that are illegal and/ or immoral.

A soldier is required to follow "lawful" orders and regulations. The definition of a unlawful order is one where the one being ordered is required to commit an unlawful act. What part of DADT is illegal or immoral? I don't think I "forgot" anything.

Forbidding a person from satisfying one of his most basic physical and psychological needs is cruel and inhuman - therefore immoral.

bdickens wrote:Forbidding a person from satisfying one of his most basic physical and psychological needs is cruel and inhuman - therefore immoral.

Hoi Polloi wrote:And no one is forcing them to volunteer, either.

Purplehood wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:And no one is forcing them to volunteer, either.

I get the distinct impression that you would prefer they didn't. I don't mean this as any sort of direct attack, but I think that anyone that wants to serve should be able to.
Follow the UCMJ and you can't go wrong.

Purplehood wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:And no one is forcing them to volunteer, either.

I get the distinct impression that you would prefer they didn't. I don't mean this as any sort of direct attack, but I think that anyone that wants to serve should be able to.
Follow the UCMJ and you can't go wrong.

b322da wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:And no one is forcing them to volunteer, either.

I get the distinct impression that you would prefer they didn't. I don't mean this as any sort of direct attack, but I think that anyone that wants to serve should be able to.
Follow the UCMJ and you can't go wrong.

With fear and foreboding as to maybe reopening what has become a fairly quiet thread, I must venture that when Purplehood talks, I listen.

Elmo

Purplehood wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:And no one is forcing them to volunteer, either.

I get the distinct impression that you would prefer they didn't. I don't mean this as any sort of direct attack, but I think that anyone that wants to serve should be able to.
Follow the UCMJ and you can't go wrong.