Talk:Reductio ad Hitlerum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.


"In other words, genocide and white supremacism, as two examples, are not considered evil on their own basis, while Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them."

Does this read as "genocide and white supremacism are not considered evil" to anyone else? I know this is supposed to be neutral POV but GENOCIDE???

Tried to deal with the usual POV issues arising from the use of the term "evil". -- Bonalaw 15:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember well.. there is another famous latin sentence similar to this like "reductio ad xxx"

Are you thinking of reductio ad absurdum? —No-One Jones (m) 16:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
that's it! thanks :-)

---

Should a mentioned not be in the article that the phrase comes from the logical fallicy Reductio ad absurdum? — Asbestos | Talk 12:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should. And now it is. Aerion 21:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I think smoking is a better issue for the example than tax cuts, since "the President supports tax cuts" is a pretty touchy subject, since the current President does indeed support tax cuts and Hitler wasn't well-known for supporting the same-Nazism is a form of socialism.Lebob 07:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, tax cuts are a situational issue. It's unclear whether, influence by the economic forces of 2001, Hitler would have approved that specific tax cut. Smoking is timeless; it's reasonably clear that Hitler would have enacted the anti-smoking legislation he enacted not matter what the circumstances. Lebob 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Deletion of entire article?

Does anybody else think this article is a candidate for deletion? I am tempted to recommend a vote. It is not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia, and I am a very big fan of Leo Strauss. It lacks any real conceptual independence from logical fallacy in general. Moreover, it seems to be a political/editorial support for minimizing Heidegger's Nazism.--Mikerussell 07:12, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Was there a vote I'd say Keep. The fallacy sees enough use in discourse, esp. online (see Godwin's law), to make a Reductio ad Hitlerum a notable specific instance of Reductio ad Absurdum. I'll see if I can add that the comparisons are still happening. -- Kizor 14:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kizor that the term / concept is in common usage, though sometimes mockingly so. Another, more timely, concept might be a reduction to terrorists, as per the phrase "if you ***, then the terrorists have already won."
--zandperl 03:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, deletion is a tough call, but the substance of the article is dubious. The phrase is not in "common usage" (there are billions of phrases that are far more common), the article's neutrality is non-existent, and its logic is questionable. On the last point, it is true but trivial to argue "just because Hitler supported it doesn't make it wrong". Nazi associations should be examined on their merits - not automatically dismissed as logical fallacies.--Jack Upland 23:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You apparently have absolutely no idea what the phrase "logical fallacy" means. It is an undisputable fact that, logically, "X is a bad idea" can never follow from "Y supported X", unless it it is held to be true that "every idea Y ever had was bad" and "the situation now is the same as when Y had the idea". Reductio ad Hiterlum is a logical fallacy. Keep. mstroeck 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote keep. Furthermore, I see no grounds for deletion. A Google search returned over 13,000 pages with the term so it's far more common than many other items that merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It's also included in some online logic lexicons. More than that, the basic concept of the article - appealing to someone's sense of moral outrage by vacuously associating an idea with Hitler or Nazis - is so prevelent in politcal discourse nowadays even though most do not use nor have even heard the term "Reductio ad Hitlerum". As far as conceptual distictiveness, what's true about Reductio ad Hitlerum is also true of ever other argumentum ad and reductio ad fallacy. They're all just more specific extentions of their respective prototypes. I completely disagree with Jack. The logic behind it - the fact that Hitler or the Nazis advanced a particular idea has no effect on the truth of that idea - is irrefutable. JE1977 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote to delete. The entire article as written is a double fallacy. It is first the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum because if all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious then even the comparison of Neo-Nazis to Hitler would be false-which is absurd. It is also a straw man argument. People who make Nazi comparisons are not saying that an idea or practice is bad because Hitler did it but that Hitler took the idea further towards it's logical conclusion and as it progressed further towards that logical conclusion it produced bad results.They are using Hitler as an EXAMPLE of why an idea is bad. Nazi comparisons may be valid-depending on whether there really is an ideological or historical connection to Hitler and whether Hitler produced bad results by pressing the idea towards it's logical conclusion
This article violates NPOV. Reductio ad Hitlerum is not universally recognized and no room is made for other points of view. In my own opinion reductio ad hitlerum is often used as propaganda and as a polemic against those who would warn us of genuine threat to liberty by taking away the ability to make meaningful comparisons to past tyrannies. This article is unbecoming of Wikipedia--DCnet 00:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
"Reductio ad absurdum" has been mentioned twice in this "thread", both times as a logicall fallacy. How sad is that in a logic-related talk page people do not know that reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy? Moreover, to answer DCnet: you are first using a falacy of the excluded middle: no-one said that "all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious". Some are, some aren't. No dichotomy here. Second, your claim to straw man argument is incorrect. If I were to say: "Killing millions is bad, because Hitler did it", that would be a logical fallacy (a reductio ad Hitlerum, precisely). Someone pointing my fault would not be strawmanning me, nor defending killing innocents, nor defending Hitler's acts. Fact is killing people is bad for many other reasons, but not directly because Hitler did it. That is (as all logical fallacies, in the end) a non sequitur. Does everyone realize that the truth value of a statement has NOTHING to do with its logic? "Killing millions is bad" is true, and so is "Hitler did it". However, "Killing millions is bad because Hitler did it" is faulty logic, and an actual reductio ad absurdum can prove it: Hitler didn't kill billions, therefore we could conclude that "Not killing billions is bad, because Hitler did not do it". Isilanes 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Isilanes, I must disagree with your statement 'no-one said that "all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious" '. I understand the article to be saying precisely that and is in fact understood in exactly this fashion by a lot of other people, including those who believe that any Nazi comparison automatically forfeit the debate. If that was not the intended message then editing is needed to clarify this point. Many logical fallacies do have caveats.For example there are valid appeals to authority and cases where absence of evidence may be reasonably presumed as evidence of absence. The article could be saved by making the appropriate caveats but as it stands it is a candidate for deletion.
This quote by Strauss in the article 'A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.' does not accurately represent the views of those who make Nazi comparisons, and because it does not it is a straw man. The only possible rebuttal of this charge are to show that the article (and the views of Strauss) does accurate represent the views of those making Nazi comparisons or that I have misunderstood the intent of the article.I do not beleive IMHO that either one can be established.DCnet 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is NOT saying that all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious. The article is saying that comparison to Nazis (devoid of further arguments) is not a valid point to critizice anything. "I'm wearing trousers, therefore tomorrow it will rain" is fallacious (a non sequitur), however true me wearing trousers or tomorrow raining be. And "X is bad because Hitler did it" is equally faulty logic. Always. Not because all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious, but rather because it is a non sequitur, as "valid" a non sequitur as any other. Actually, it is a straw man argument towards "X", it just happens that such a way of strawmanning ideas is much more common than comparing them to blue elephants, and therefore "reductio ad blue elephant" does not deserve an encyclopedic article, but reductio ad Hitlerum does.
You say that the Strauss quote "does not accurately represent the views of those who make Nazi comparisons" (and is therefore a straw man). I must disagree. You are absolutely right if you mean that sometimes valid Nazi comparisons are made. However, it is silly to deny that a whole lot of people think than equating something to a Nazi custom is the last word in a discussion, as if it proved something, which it doesn't. Therefore, it is undeniable that the Strauss quote could and should be applied to them, and the article is valid.
Moreover, I must remind you that your criticism of using the name "Hitler" in logical fallacies was shared by the Nazis... ;^) Isilanes 09:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, when I found this article I spent about a minute scanning it then flipped to this page. From what little I read, I fairly clearly got the message that "'reductio ad hitlerum' is a rather common kind of strawman argument", not "all comparisons to nazism are fallacious" -and as I said that took me a minute, so it's message is not exactly veiled. I don't think there is anything wrong with this article. It's a concept I've come across plenty of times without being able to name, and the article itself is neither invented nor factually inaccurate, so no cause for deletion. -Zepheriah 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I agree. I got the impression that the term coins something that has frustrated me for a long time, and that this page does a good job of laying out my gripes with it. Nowhere is it implied that there are no valid comparisons. Two similar and common fallacies, that have not yet been coined AFAIK, is the reduction to child abuse (typically as an ad hominem or non sequitur) and the reduction to terrorism or fundamentalism (more common in the US than around here, it seems). There are some knee-jerk topics that like some magic invocation will put a stop to anything (or start just about anything) by the mere implication or threat of association if an argument is opposed. It's plain silly. Zuiram 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep' With one caveat. As was mentioned above, reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, this should be cleared up in this article. (I'm horrid at anything having to do with logic otherwise I would do it myself.) Because this article presents reductio ad absurdum as a fallacy it contains incorrect data, which should probably be cleared up. I only know this because I came to this page from the reductio ad absurdum page, lol.

[edit] Gandhi

New here so pardon me if this is out of turn but isn't claiming Ghandi was 'as benign as Hitler was evil' strongly POV rather than NPOV? By that I mean, although Hitler's extreme evil is so beyond dispute that calling him evil is barely POV, to claim Ghandi's benignness is as great as Hitler's evil seems not very neutral for an encyclopedia even though Ghandi was very benign. This issue doesn't affect the overall quality of the article because the author was only illustrating an example, I'm just raising the POV issue as part of finding my wiki-feet. GhostGirl 17:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if nothing else, it's a little awkward. I changed it to "non-violence proponent," because I think the idea is to show contrasts with Hitler. My phrasing is still pretty awkward, using non-violence as an adjective, but less POV at least, focusing on what he did, rather than how good he is. NickelShoe 17:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
There's also the fact that ghandi was rather racist, at least in his earlier years... But that's neither here not there, because the points you make are more fundamental... —Memotype::T 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


By the way; Penn and Teller did a show about the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and Mahatma Ghandi.
Ghandi was accused of being racist and a pedophile. For the claim of him being racist they actually have great sources: Ghandi himself... Ghandi was not as good as Hitler was bad.
85.223.108.141 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Those examples suck. Not one of them is a proper statement of reductio ad hitlerum; the best examples are usually Godwin posts on Usenet discussions, but whatever, the examples given do not illustrate the definition as stated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The examples are meant to illustrate how to show that any such argument is in fact nonsense. They're not examples of actual reductions ad hitlerums. Please read the article carefully before judging. ~Anonymous
No, really, the examples really ARE that bad. Especially the last one. Essentially it is argumented that excessive supervision by the state can easily be misused for malign purposes, and Hitler is a mere example, not part of the reasoning.
Anyway, SHOULD the examples not at least be genuine reductios ad hitlerum? Else why are they included in this article anyway? --Stephan, 30th January 2006
Yes, they ought to be genuine examples of the reductio ad hitlerum. NickelShoe 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The third is a very poor example. It is perfectly valid to cite Hitler's use of excessive supervision there: it's intended to illustrate the way in which ID cards might be misused, not merely taint them by association.--Malcohol 12:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In Watchmen, Rorschach uses reductio ad Hitlerum to insult Ozymandias; after Nite Owl points out that Ozymandias is a vegetarian, Rorschach points out that Hitler was one too. -- LGagnon 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The examples suck. The 'Equating Israelis with Nazis' example unwittingly contains an ad hitlerum itself in suggesting that Arabs and Palestinians were nazis. IMHO, there are some major POV issues with this example. Hitler and gun control or the Hitler-Bush comparison would be better, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.225.117 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See here. --GHcool (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger from Godwin's Law

Pretty much, Godwin's Law is a law that deals directly with Reductio ad Hitlerum. The analyses in the articles complement each other nicely. They should be together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs)

  • Disagree. The two are only superficially related and each has more than enough merit to stand on its own as an article. This is akin to suggesting that all Chevrolet car articles be merged into one because they are all from the same manufacturer. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are argumenting like HITLER! He, too, always wanted to artificially seperate was ought to be one...
  • I see the point behind merging them, but I also see Brossow's concern about it muddying the articles up--making the differences less clear. If the articles were particularly short, that would be somewhat different, but a clean merge looks difficult without simply keeping them as separate sections. Perhaps something more prominent connecting the two than "see also" would be in order, though. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. In addition to BRossow's comments, a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis is not automatically a fallacy, and it's not just the fallacies that Godwin's Law addresses. --Grouse 08:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but the analysis that Godwin's Law gives is useful for all Hitler and Nazi comparisons, not just those on online communities. Reductio ad Hitlerum would benefit from the analysis in the Godwin's Law article. It's not an issue of article size; both articles have enough information for a page of their own. It is instead an issue of "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." [1] As for the fact that Hitler/Nazi comparisons aren't always fallacious, I think that that's an important distinction that Godwin's Law has and Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't, and both topics would benefit from it. Jesuschex 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • But, it's not like you couldn't add information from either page without doing a full merge. I'm just concerned about merging them when they're pretty distinct ideas. That is, when a reader clicks "Godwin's Law", I think it's unfair for them to end up at "Reductio ad Hitlerum" or vice versa, if neither is truly a subtopic of the other. That seems like it would be confusing and even misleading in itself. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. They are in fact addressing different topics: This adresses the likeliness of someone to relate something to Hitler, the Nazi party, etc. making it evil (with a flawed argument), while the Godwin's law article addresses the likeliness of a Usenet user to compare a user or other object to that of the Nazis, e.g. "Grammar Nazi", as an insult or general moniker, to show that they do this frequently or aggressively. --SheeEttin 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Hitler would have agreed. toresbe 12:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious comment!
  • This disagree comment was posted at Godwin's Law and I am copying it here as it forms part of this discussion:
It seems worth pointing out that deletion or merger would break certain prior media references to Wikipedia's entry on "Godwin's Law". Moreover, there are probably more references to Godwin's Law on Usenet on the Web than there are to "Reductio Ad Hitlerum," which in any case does not have the same meaning. It seems wrong to have Straussians attempt to hijack this page or delete it. Furthermore, googling "Godwin's Law" and "reductio ad hitlerum" indicates that references to the former exceed those to the latter by at least an order of magnitude. So:
(1) the two locutions don't mean the same thing.
(2) Godwin's law has an order of magnitude (at least) more references
(3) fans of Leo Strauss ought not to be able to hijack this page
(4) there have been external media references to this Wikipedia entry.
—This unsigned comment was added by 68.49.2.164 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 April 2006 UTC.
  • Do not merge as per 68.49.2.164. -- cmh 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Quite different things. romanista 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears there is a clear consensus to keep separate pages. I am therefore removing the proposed mergebox. --Grouse 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided to put a reference to Godwin's Law into the lead paragraph, and in turn put a reference to this article in the GL one. I think the two topics are sufficiently intertwined to warrant that. mstroeck 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random observation

"ad nazium" sounds like "ad nauseam".

I Agree. The term may have arisen from a finessing of "Reductio ad Hitlerum" and finding a more appropriate logical fallacy term, not to mention having fewer syllables and a wider applicability. ad nazium would, in fact, make a nice subset of the ad nauseam arguments, being Dog Latin itself. 64.90.198.6 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moustaches

Can it be conclusively proved that men with moustaches aren't evil? Seems like a rather POV statement to me. CameoAppearance 06:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe law of excluded middle is important here.

Screw you, I was going to point that out. :P Vitriol 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I am an evil rouge admin and I have a moustache. Does that count? Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Men with mustaches are clearly evil. Don't you people watch the movies? --Jfruh (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is very POV and should be removed because men with mustaches are obviously a menace to our existence. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Couln't agree more. Men with moustaches are a menace to the society as we know it. Oh, and add to them men without moustaches and women (with and without moustaches). Isilanes 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. I think there's a consensus here that such a dangerous lie should be erased from the Wikipedia. Or better, shaved from the Wikipedia.

Please, take this more seriously! There is empirical evidence enough that wearing a moustache and being evil are positively correlated!193.40.33.50 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the "reductio ad stalinum"

I have been unable to verify the fact that is asserted in this sentence: "For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary because Josef Stalin enacted its abolition." I have looked high and low for information about Stalin having done this and have not found it in any biography. If anyone has information about this, I would be grateful if it would be posted. G.L. 07:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 'counterexamples'?

Considering the fact that Reductio ad Hitlerum is fallacious even in the context X = 'holocaust', why is there a mention of those counterexamples at all? They do not in any way enlighten people on the fallacy of the reasoning because the fallacy is logically deeper than the superficial (counter)examples. Just a statement of 'they are not evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler was evil because he advocated them.' already included should be more than enough.

Showing also the superficial examples will only serve to perpetuate the fallacy because they do not tackle the fact that not only the good sides of Hitler but also the bad sides are not a valid use of argument. So I say either add some references to Hitler's worse actions (invading poland, antisemitism, etc.) in the examples or just remove them as a whole.

  • Good point. I'll see to it. Isilanes 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The point that i am trying to make but for some reason keeps getting removed is this. The counterexamples do not refute anything as the article says. Just because someone was an opponent to Hitler does not make them by implication not evil themselves. As a very good example Stalin is considered by many to be at least as evil as Hitler. Therefore it is irrelevant what commonalities Churchill and Eisenhower have with Hitler.71.61.16.14 08:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. The counterexamples do refute. Your words imply that Churchill or Eisenhower are considered "good" because they oposed Hitler. You are accusing other authors of making an "inverse" ad Hitlerum, which is not the case. These people, and specially Einstein, are considered at least not particularly evil by themselves. Then, the comparison to Hitler is used as a reductio ad absurdum for the ad Hitlerum. Isilanes 09:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does not make sense

The line "The argument being fallacious, however, does not prove X, or its supporters, not being evil" does not make sense.

  • Yes, it does. But maybe it could benefit from a couple of examples of what it means. --Sebastián
  • Well, I guess that examples of supporting some Nazi idea and not being evil should be (and have been) given. The opposite... one wouldn't think so. However, in the same paragraph it reads: "Hitler killed human beings, therefore killing is wrong", and it is clearly said that X (killing human beings) might be wrong (we could rephrase it to "evil"), even though the reasoning behind the affirmation is fallacious. I think that this example, and the "affirming the consequent" mention, make it clear... but anything to make it clearer or more complete is welcome! - Isilanes 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the "trousers and rain" simile is not apt -- it's more an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. To be a real parallel it should have to do with trousers. The point is that "Hitler did X [and he did things that are wrong], therefore X is wrong," even if X IS wrong, is fallacious. A parallel should therefore be "I do X, [and I am Y], therefore X is Y" (even if X really IS Y), not "I do X, [and I am Y], therefore Z." If I am myself making sense. I just don't have a suitable trouser conclusion handy that is both true concerning trousers and yet fallacious. EDIT: Possibly "I am wearing jeans [and I always wear blue], therefore jeans are blue." Blue jeans ARE blue, but not because I'm wearing them. ...?
  • I don't get your point exactly. The "trousers and rain" simile is not there to directly illustrate a reductio ad Hitlerum, but rather to clarify what a logical fallacy is, in general. Maybe it's misleading, then? Thanks for pointing out, I'll consider changing it (of course, you can do it yourself). Moreover, your example with blue jeans is not really correct, because if I always wear blue, and I wear jeans, it logically follows that jeans (at least the ones I wear) are blue. From the information we have, yes, they are blue because I wear them. Similarly, if we assumed that all Hitler did was "bad", then from Hitler having done something, it follows that it was bad (and the reductio ad Hitlerum would be a sound reasoning). The problem is with the premise that all that Hitler did was bad, which is obviously incorrect. A maybe better simile would be: "I wear a horrible pair of jeans, and I like Velázquez, therefore Velázquez was a bad painter" (it goes implied that, since I wear ugly trousers, I have bad taste, and since I have bad taste for clothes, I must have bad taste for everything. Moreover, if I have bad taste and like a painter, it must be bad, because I can not even be "right" by chance). However, the more convoluted an example, the less apt to convey the main idea of why a fallacy is a fallacy (be it reductio ad Hitlerum or any other), and that's why I am partial to the "trousers and rain" simile. — Isilanes 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism?

How the heck does X='vegetarianism'?? I don't this there was one German in the 1940's who was a vegetarian, or claimed to be one. It seems that possibly this is the case because there is some fallacy regarding Hitler being a vegetarian. He wasn't. --169.237.165.103 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have seen this claim outside of Wikipedia, in The People's Almanac (a real book!) It is possible this is untrue, but if it is, it is a common incorrect belief.P.L.A.R. 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
He was, but I dont beleive he 'truely' adhered to it until about 1938, before it was selective. I have studied his life in depth, but I can assue you his vegetarianism is supported by most historians user:Pzg Ratzinger
Hitler definitely was not a vegetarian, as this article points out, and he should not be listed or classified as such. He ate sausage frequently and ham occasionally. He also oppressed vegetarian groups in Germany and outlawed nearly every single one of them. Nanten 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hitler did have a very peculiar diet, though, he mostly ate very bland and tasteless food, prepared by his own private chef. If he was a vegetarian, it wasn't because of ethical reasons, but something medical (imagined or otherwise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.225.117 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reductio ad Binladenum

I removed the following addition by 213.94.253.3 because it's unsubstantiated, unreferenced and isn't really neutral point of view:

Reductio ad Binladenum can be seen in the following quote by Diogo Freitas do Amaral "The agreement to start talks with Turkey [about EU accession] will probably displease Mr Osama bin Laden, who has done everything to prevent this moment arriving." Essentially it is saying: bin Laden opposes Turkish EU membership, therefore Turkey should join the EU.

The quote by Amaral seems to me to be simply a plain statement of fact, and we cannot know if Amaral intended the statement to be interpreted as the editor suggested. Starlord 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, so there are three options: either he mentions bin Laden because a) his displease is positive for the matter discussed, b) it is negative, or c) it is irrelevant. What are you suggesting is the case? It is either an argument from authority (a), a reductio ad binLadenum (b) or a non sequitur (c). And the ad binLadenum is by far the most likely one. Or maybe you mean that if I were to say "Turkey will join the EU, which would please Hitler", I would not be using a reductio ad Hitlerum? It woult not be so just because I would not add "... so it makes it bad" (which would go implied)? For me it is clear as water, however I would accept that there may be better examples — Isilanes 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate example

I think that I have found the most hilarious example of the reductio ad Hitlerum: [1]. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add a link to this in the article, or add it to the examples. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your link is broken :-(

Oh dear, it seems to have moved. In any case, there was someone arguing that since Hitler believed the earth was round, everyone else who agrees with this is on the same moral level as him. Funny while it lasted. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Try this - [2] - 203.214.158.32 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux example

Some people say Linux is bad because it's (allegedly) used by Kim Jong Il. How bout putting this as an example? It's much more recent than Cromwell..91.127.220.242 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reductio ad Einsteinium

I've noticed there is no general page for logical fallacies. I think there should be a fallacy called Reducto ad Einsteinium. Basically the fallacy being if Einstein said it, it must be true. I’ve only found this phrase used once on the web. Well, I’ve used it one place as well. That makes three instances of it. Maybe it will catch on. I've used it here: http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8539 More logical fallicies can be found at this link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html ~~s243a

[edit] Not A Fallacious Statement

This statement: "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are comparable to Hitler." is not actually a fallacy from what I can see. One can compare to Hitler. It is not a very good comparison but you can do it. I think it would be better if it read something like "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are as evil as Hitler.", this would both be a fallacy and be a better example of reductio ad Hitlerum in my opinion. Colincbn 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most people crying "Godwin's Law" when you point out something they propose as constituting fascism as well as all comparisons to Hitler. Generally, comparisons to Hitler that I've seen are to /disprove/ ridiculous claims along the lines of "Anyone doing X is a good person." Did Hitler doing X make him a good person? Nothing in this article balances this, and unfortunately it likely won't because of the preponderance of "ohh, you can't compare anyone to Hitler, Hitler wasn't human." Hitler was very human, and those who forget that are likely to not see the next one coming who promises to rebuild the nation, make things better for the nation, etc. ... --Chibiabos 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't follow your argument. If someone says "Anyone doing X is good", and you say "Hitler also did X... so you are wrong" (assuming that Hitler being "bad" or "evil" is obvious) is a perfectly valid reductio ad absurdum. This article does not deal with that. This article deals with saying "Doing X makes you automatically evil, because Hitler also did X". — isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You didn't follow it because you didn't read it; that's how most people mis-use it. Anyone mentioning the word 'Hitler' in an argument, regardless of what the actual point being made is, "automatically loses" the argument to too many people who fail to grasp debate and are unwilling to consider the absurdity of the points of their argument upon which their reasoning hinges.
Except that they don't. There's no basis for this in formal argument. If something is a fallacy, it is an actual fallacy whose errors can be pointed out without reference to a particular historical figure. The idea that one man's name can invalidate an argument is in of itself a fallacy. As one cannot have a fallacious fallacy, this is basically a stupid article to put under Philosophy, even if Leo Strauss' feelings were hurt.
 Another reason this is mis-used is, in a discussion of whether or not 'Christianity' is good or evil, pointing out that Hitler's violent anti-semitic views (according to what I've read anyway) originated from Christians, inspired by (among others) Martin Luther who founded the Lutheran Church.  --Chibiabos 16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope, violent antisemitism existed long before Christianity ever did. And Luther's main target of ire were the Muslims -- Jews were hardly a factor in the Empire during Luther's day. Hitler's violent antisemitism had very little to do with Christianity -- the original targets of fascist movements were communists, who were then later associated retroactively with the Jews. - Che Nuevara 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, genocide and white supremacism, as two examples, are not considered evil on their own basis, while Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them.

[edit] At least they made the trains run on time

I added a note about the, I thought, common enough counter ad-hitlerum, "at least they made the trains run on time"; which I took to be a way of saying "that's a common logical fallacy" without shouting "Godwin's Law!" at everyone.
However... I've since heard a reference to the phrase (TV doco) which implied that the phrase refers to the trains transporting Jews to the death camps. In other words, it's the punchline of an old, terrifyingly ironic joke amongst post-War Jewish comedians. ("It could be worse, Moshe, at least...") Hence, off topic, probably offensive in this context.
On the other hand, an editor of my text commented that this was an Italian joke at Mussolini's expense. So, still off topic, but not offensive. Basically, I'm just confused.

Delete it, don't delete it??? -- PaulxSA (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe -- but I'm not positive -- that the joke came afterwards, as a way of disparaging the idea that "at least they made the trains run on time". Don't quote me, but it seems most likely to me. - Revolving Bugbear 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Trains running on time? Reliable transportation (this applies also to Autobahnen for which Adolf Hitler was given undue credit) isn't evil in itself. How a regime gets the trains running on time or builds good roads matters. Non-totalitarian governments have been able to build good roads (the Dutch had a motorway by 1940) and gotten the trains to run on time. Italy had reliable train service before World War I that was badly degraded during the war and took several years to get back to the pre-war norm.

Technological marvels are not proof of the moral superiority of a society but instead proof of the society's ability to marshal the resources to achieve them. The Soviet Union was able to do wonders in early space exploration because it was able to concentrate resources in such an activity even if it was a nasty place in which to live. (Sure, that judgment is biased -- but Soviet living standards were low in contrast to most of the rest of Europe, and the political system allowed practically none of the civil liberties taken for granted elsewhere).--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Reducio ad Hitlerum

Would someone bringing up Hitler/Nazis/The Holocaust to show that something else isn't all that bad, and not worthy of being discussed, be an example of reverse reducio ad Hitlerum, and if so, should reverse reducio ad Hitlerum be included in the article?

For example, if there were a discussion on government access to library records, when someone new posts something along the lines of "What does it matter? At least they're not gassing six million Jews. you need to focus on more important things like genocide. Library records are trivial."

The fallacy being that because library snooping isn't as bad the Holocaust, it isn't something which deserves at least careful thought and worry.

(This isn't to say anything about library snooping- there are all sorts of discussions where this could be used, and there will be people on either side of it. I just thought it was a good example.)

I've seen this kind of thing a lot, too.

--Tyrannophobe (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument is best understood as the slippery slope fallacy -- for example, any rightward move on the political spectrum is a move toward Hitler, or that any little repression (as in attempts to discover what persons access child pornography) leads to greater ones.

It's used frequently by the gun fanatics in America who argue that efforts to ban the handguns that criminals prefer to use will lead in the end to the prohibition of hunting rifles and in turn to the inability of people to stand up to a usurpation of dictatorial power. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Expelled" as an example?

Has anyone here seen "Expelled"? I think that this would be an excellent example, but I don't want to add it myself seeing as I don't know that much about this topic (Reductio ad Hitlerum), and I could be wrong altogether. Thanks! Cliche Screenname (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the inevitable Israel/Palestine issue (please help)...

I think we need a new reductio, 'Reductio ad irrelevant Terrorism/Zionism/antisemitism based rant', with an accompanying Godwin-style law (Jerusalem law?) that in any debate on an issue remotely connected with political philosophy, someone will highjack it as a platform for their views on the Isreal-Palestine conflict, and everyone will lose...

I'm trying to edit the 'Examples: New Anti-semitism' section into something vaguely resembling no-POV, and it's not easy. Please help... it's always hard to balance these things without it turning into a tit-for-tat debate.

I think it would be a shame to cull the whole section, as minus the rhetoric they do have a fair point and it is a good example, so long as it's not taken too far. I am very tempted to delete the final paragraph. Interesting as it is, it basically amounts to 'There are academics who have speculated about roots of what they think are the beliefs of two continents regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict', and I don't see what that has to do with either Reductio Ad Hitlerum or logical fallacies in general.

I've left that paragraph alone because I'm not experienced enough to make that call. al

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanomaly (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

'Scholars explain this phenomenon in different ways depending on which individual or group is using the false analogy. Bernard Lewis explains that Middle Eastern Arabs use it as an attempt to rewrite the history of the Holocaust by placing Arabs in the Jews' roles and Jews in the Nazis' roles (many Arabs admired the Nazis).[10] Mitchell G. Bard explains that Europeans use it to shift the focus away from the crimes of the Holocaust they committed in their own past to the alleged crimes that their past victims (Jews) are committing in the present.[11]'


'Explains' is contentious, it makes the opinions of these people sounds like faact, 'many arabs admired the Naziis' is contentious (I would argue out-right incorrect, with 'many' definetly not being quantifiable, and in fact far less Arabs admiring the Nazis than Britains for example), unecessary and not supported by the source (which does not seem to be that authoritative anyway).86.140.39.142 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Personally I think the whole Nazisrael thing and equivalent should be kept to a miniumum, its inclusion only invites debate and polemic, parallels between Israel and aspects of Nazi Germany can be drawn (i.e. nationalism), so it would be incorrect to strawman the argument here by saying they cant, however the linsk are often tenous, and the motives between Nazi Policy and Israeli policy are in many ways different (but in some ways not), and the Israeli policy is far less extreme (at leadt at this moment in time). I think the argument should just be avoided, this page only is ment to provide examples for ad Hitlerum and this one as stated only brings more argument than necessary, if it is included evaluation should be kept to a minimum, it is not wikipedia's job to evaluate each and every use of fallacy.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this Israel/Nazi fallacy is made often enough by enough people and organizations that it deserves to be discussed, and has been discussed, and should be included on WIkipedia. Some of 86.140.39.142's arguments above resort to the vary same fallacy. The people quoted here are scholars of Middle Eastern history. Their opinions on the subject are as informed as the opinions of the scientists in the creationism/Hitler fallacy. --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I state I dont support the fallacy, I state it is a fallacy, I think that correlation does not imply linkage, the extent to which I percieve Israel and Hitler's Germany only stretches as far as I see both as ethincally nationalist states supporting speicific ehtnic groups within their populous. In fact my own opinion is that the comparissons between Nazi Germany and Israel are often strained, and generally the motive behind them is to be 'provocative', i.e. to tell 'the Jews' that they are doing the same thing in Israel that the Germans were doing in Germany. Although I personally find such linkages often offensive, I think to a degree they are also necessary in the fact they point to some aspects of right-wing policy of those in Israel bearing uncomfertable similarities to the policies pursued by the Nazis (i.e. the 'ghettoization' of the Palestinians), I think such comparisons although often forced are not necessary as fallacious as the sections devoted to them try and claim by hiding behind the wall of a seemingly un-realted topic. P.S. you have not adressed my more specific concern, the unqualified and weasel worded statement that 'most arabs supported the Nazis' which is pretty much utterly incorrect.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt have a probelm with the section if it was altered so it dosent look like its trying to prove a point and trying to debunk specific criticism of Israel, frankly it sounds like a bit of an apology and Im not confident that it hasn't been written for this purpose (due to the examples I've given you), again I think 'explains' should be a word limited to things such as the natural sciences, 'explains' here looks like wikipedia is stating what these people say is fact. I wont get into this further but I feel this whole Israel thing was started by someone in punic good faith.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S sorry about my atrocious spelling in general, I tpe fast and IM a dyslexic (ask if you want more excuses =)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.39.142 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel does not "ghettoize" Palestinians and, in Israel, justice is blind concerning the race/religion of its citizens. This was not the case in Nazi Germany. There is no correlation here at all. For the history of Arab-Nazi collaboration, please read the following articles: Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation, Farhud. Also, see the source this information is cited to within this article in which Bernard Lewis describes the fallacy thusly, "The memory of both the Jewish victims and Arab admirers of the Third Reich is totally effaced" (emphasis added). --GHcool (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Justice is not blind in practice over the arab citizens Israel had control over (including the cocupied territories), you must know this well. Im not, however going to get into and argument with you over this point because it is irrelevant to what I am trying to state; As I have stated I recognise the fallacy as a fallacy, although I also recognise not all fallacies point away from a logical point. I am perfectly well aware of Mohammad main al-Husayni, I did not say no arabs collaberated with the Nazis, but as far as I know the overhwhelming majority did not, and in places such as Albania (although not arab per se) muslims banded together to help prevent practically any taking of Jewish citizens. If the situation was replayed now it might be different, but unfortunately for you history is not written based on events in the present. I am sure you are also well aware that Hitler, before the war, was one of the main advocates of a state of Israel, and the Nazi party funded many organisations. There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated with the Nazis than Arabs (at any rate as far as I am aware of in terms of important personages). 'Expain' as I stated is not encyclopaedio in that it states that this referenced person has a monopoly over the subject and has just dealt a finishing blow to any counter-attack, that is not for this encyclopaedia to judge. 'Many Arabs admired the nazis [sic]' is not quantifiable due to the word 'many', it is a weasel word, and is not quantifiable. Although I completly understand that 'wikipedia is not censored' this seems deliberately placed here to make some sort of point, its like saying '...Is a logical fallacy and oh btw many arabs supported the Nazis regime [sic]...', it is irrelevant and question the good faith of the editor who put it there because it seems like an attack. It would be like me putting in the Israeli Defence Force article, 'the government spent X amount of dollars on X new tank oh and btw many Israelis agree the killing of two thousand Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila was a good thing'.86.140.39.142 (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Bernard Lewis is simply a ultra-right neocon historian, his views should definetly not be taken on their own and under no circumstances should be stated as 'fact', his view is actually on the fringe of most historians, so according to WP:FRINGE yadda yadda...86.140.39.142 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just got rid of the "most Arabs admired ..." clause. If you don't like Bernard Lewis, feel free to add more historians' opinions as well as his own, but he is definitely a reliable source and not considered fringe by any means. Although some consider his views might be on the conservative end of the political spectrum, he isn't an "ultra-right neocon."
Most of what you wrote above is categorically false:
  • The Accusation: "Justice is not blind in practice over the arab [sic] citizens Israel had control over (including the cocupied [sic] territories), you must know this well."
  • The Reality: Justice is blind in practice and in theory over the Arab citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs (i.e. the Arabs living in the occupied territories) are not covered under Israeli law because they are not Israeli citizens. Their legal body is the Palestinian National Authority. Even so, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on certain aspects of Israeli interaction into Palestinian life with incredible subtlety and has often made decisions that favor Palestinian rights over Israeli security concerns (see, for example, the Israeli Supreme Court Opinions on the West Bank Barrier).
  • The Accusation: "I am sure you are also well aware that Hitler, before the war, was one of the main advocates of a state of Israel."
  • The Reality: This is a ridiculous statement if I ever heard one. If you have proof, feel free to give it, but if not, you've embarrassed yourself deeply.
  • The Accusation: "There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated [sic] with the Nazis than Arabs (at any rate as far as I am aware of in terms of important personages)."
  • The Reality: Another ridiculous statement unworthy of consideration. Prove it or shut up. --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel I have to answer the last two of your statements explicitly because I realize that if left unanswered you could (rightly from judgign an editor who does not back up his statements) get a wrong impression of myself. In reference to Zionists who were backed by Hitler before the war (basically an alliance of convienience as both wished to topple the British government in Palestine) I ahve quickly cameup with this source, it is not at all authoritative but states the examples of the behaviour I was referring to, in no way do I think Zionists and Nazis are the same thing, I just think that stating that arabs were collaberaters when several zionists collaberated would be wrong. Here is the quick link I gained http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_en_101.html, I dont honestly think its very good though, I could take more time to elaborate if you wished. My statement about Hitler supporting a state of Israel, is partly due fact that the Nazi regime supported destabilizing Zionist groups, and that Hitler wished to shift 'The Jews' to every other country, even madagascar. The idea was to form a state of Israel somewhere remote and shift 'the Jews' there, but it never came about and instead the regime committed mass-murder.86.138.253.30 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the 'Ghettoization' claim I was refering to Haifa, although i recognise many citities and settlements in Israel and the occupied teritries have been liberalized or pushed bakc, partly due to the fact the Israeli governments line is now against expansion and wishing for the seperation of Arabs and Jews.86.138.253.30 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is not even close to a reliable source. Even if it were (and, I repeat, it most definitely is not), it does not support your earlier claim that "There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated [sic] with the Nazis than Arabs" (emphasis added). Please do not continue down this line of argument. It is a dead end.
There is no "ghettoization" in Haifa. In fact, Haifa is well known for its relatively peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Jews. --GHcool (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler image

I'm not sure the image of the real Adolph Hitler is appropriate here. This isn't a biography of the man. Would anybody object if I deleted the image from the article? --GHcool (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)