Reductio ad Hitlerum

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

:think:

Reductio ad Hitlerum




A montage of Saakashvili and Hitler photos as was placed on numerous Georgian government websites after hacking attacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war. Russian title of the image: "He will meet the same end".

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything Hitler did, no-one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide.

Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card.

The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger.[1]
Contents

    * 1 Fallacious nature of the argument
    * 2 History of the term
    * 3 Reductio ad Hitlerum in practice
    * 4 See also
    * 5 References
    * 6 External links

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler]." Instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are often false as well.[1] Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.

Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.[3]

The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting, enjoying classical music, owning dogs, anti-smoking campaigns or opposition to fox hunting.

History of the term

The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have appeared in University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss's 1953[4] book, Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

The phrase was derived from the better known logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.

In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:

Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ...[5]

Reductio ad Hitlerum in practice

Professor Michael André Bernstein alleged Reductio ad Hitlerum in a full-page advertisement placed in The New York Times in 1991, by the Lubavitch community, following the Crown Heights Riot, under the heading "This Year Kristallnacht Took Place on August 19th Right Here in Crown Heights." Henry Schwarzschildr, who had witnessed Kristallnacht, wrote to the New York Times that "however ugly were the anti-Semitic slogans and the assaultive behavior of people in the streets [during the Crown Heights riots] . . . one thing that clearly did not take place was a Kristallnacht."[6]

In 2004 IPCC chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, was quoted in Jyllandposten saying of global warming-skeptic Bjørn Lomborg "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's?", and "If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing." Lomborg had followed the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of out-comes with other world problems alongside climate change.[7]

In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein alleged that acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory leads to Nazism - a point illustrated by the juxtaposition of images of evolutionary biologists and Nazis.[8][9][10]

Use of Reductio ad Hitlerum has been alleged in criticisms of United States Presidents Ronald Reagan,[11] George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush,[12] and Barack Obama, and against 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain.[13][14][15][16] For example, a Penn State trustee compared Reagan's rhetoric when addressing a Young Americans for Freedom chapter to Adolf Hitler indoctrinating the Hitler Youth.[11] Moreover, American radio commentator Rush Limbaugh compared "the Democratic Party of today" and U.S. President Barack Obama to Nazis.[17]

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=101385

[Christopher Marlowe]

This is a favorite term of mine:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] 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."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.(From Wikipedia)

Later on in the article, it says that Goodwin "wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust..."   :lol:   but I think Goodwin's law easily takes in the Hoax as well.  

Maybe we should create our own meme addendum, i.e. the likelihood of specifically mentioning the holocaust.  Or a variation on that: the amount of time into the conversation that the  (Jewish) commentator mentions the Hoax.

Something like: "Weisel's Addendum".  But I am open to suggestions.  

It works like this: You're watching the Daily show, and they are discussing the mistreatment of the people of Egypt. Then 2 mins and 33 seconds into the conversation about Arab suffering, Stewart or his guest mentions the Hoax in order to remind people that no one ever has suffered more than the billionaires who run the planet.  

While you're watching at home, you would note the time, and write in your journal: "they achieved Weisel's Addendum @ 2min 33sec."  If the subject actually switches to the Hoax, that would be a "Weiselian Digression".  If a family member was lost, e.g. "All 88 grandmothers on my grandmother's side perished in the holocaust", that is a "Weiselian Pangyric", which counts slightly more than a Weiselian Addendum, but is not a full blown Weiselian Digression.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

This is a favorite term of mine:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] 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."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.(From Wikipedia)

Later on in the article, it says that Goodwin "wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust..."   :lol:   but I think Goodwin's law easily takes in the Hoax as well.  

Maybe we should create our own meme addendum, i.e. the likelihood of specifically mentioning the holocaust.  Or a variation on that: the amount of time into the conversation that the  (Jewish) commentator mentions the Hoax.

Something like: "Weisel's Addendum".  But I am open to suggestions.  

It works like this: You're watching the Daily show, and they are discussing the mistreatment of the people of Egypt. Then 2 mins and 33 seconds into the conversation about Arab suffering, Stewart or his guest mentions the Hoax in order to remind people that no one ever has suffered more than the billionaires who run the planet.  

While you're watching at home, you would note the time, and write in your journal: "they achieved Weisel's Addendum @ 2min 33sec."  If the subject actually switches to the Hoax, that would be a "Weiselian Digression".  If a family member was lost, e.g. "All 88 grandmothers on my grandmother's side perished in the holocaust", that is a "Weiselian Pangyric", which counts slightly more than a Weiselian Addendum, but is not a full blown Weiselian Digression.

   That's classic C.M.!

[Christopher Marlowe]

Example: Watch for Weisel's Addendum @ 8:00, 9:05 & 9:15.
[youtube:vt58rm17]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLdwzcA9ZdM[/youtube]vt58rm17]