We all know Godwin's Law, but I think it needs some updating. Hitler is not enough! We need some topic-specific laws. I suggest the following :
In any discussion about Catholicism, the probability of somebody bringing up pedophilia approaches unity.
In any discussion of evolution, the probability of someone using the word 'information' without defining it approaches unity.
In any discussion of abortion, the probability of someone using the phrase 'killing children' approaches unity.
In all these cases, the person doing so has lost. What other topic-specific laws can you think of?
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Well, a friend of mine came up with Galen's Law: in any thread discussing youth rights, as the length of the thread approaches infinity, the probabibilty of someone using the age of one of the participants against them approaches one. From countless threads in various forums, this law is true in my experience. That's what impresses me about Hatrack. Oh yes: King of Men, you only say that because you're a Nazi.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In any discussion of evolution, the probability of someone using the word 'information' without defining it approaches unity.
Or entropy. (The sun, people. You're forgetting the sun!)
quote:In any discussion of abortion, the probability of someone using the phrase 'killing children' approaches unity.
Well, yes, but the idea that the principle underlying premise of half the participants' position will be expressed isn't exactly useful or startling information now, is it?
My contribution, Hatrack-specific:
In any discussion about cooking, the probability of somebody mentioning Alton Brown approaches unity.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:using the age of one of the participants against them approaches one.
Not to go all Kung Fu outside of the applicable thread, but I think that there are cases where the age of the participants is an important part of the back information.
When you talk about parenting, say, it's useful to know if the person is a parent or not.
If you're talking about age, the age of the person is important information. The "use" of these things against the person can be a matter of opinion.
Anyway, continue with you regularly scheduled lighthearted thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't usually participate in them, but there must be some child actor for Ender's Game?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In the evolution argument, I would simply say that the probability of someone substituting the word "evolution" with "Darwinism," when they don't actually mean natural selection, approaches unity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dakota Fanning as Petra approaches unity. Also George Lucas as director approaches unity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In any debate about evolutionary theory, the probability of abiogenesis being assumed to be an integral part of evolution is pretty much unity from the get-go.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you know, I do feel that this is not totally unreasonable. I mean, it's not strictly speaking part of the Theory of Evolution as such, sure. But it's definitely one of the things a naturalistic worldview has to explain, and a debate on evolution is really not a bad place for it. It's all part and parcel of the same thing, namely, whether sheer chemistry can explain the richness of life we see.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yah, but actually calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" is just stupid. Its only the psuedo-educated of today who believe that Darwin discovered evolution.
Fine to mention Darwin, but it really kills the discussion when people start throwing in all the Darwin crap as a catch all denial.
So: the probability of a proponent of evolutionary theory being called a "Darwinist" approaches unity.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
In any discussion about religion on Hatrack, the probability of someone comparing another poster to King Of Men approaches unity.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I think it's more likely to be "I'm not KoM, you know."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Look, I'm not you, ya'know!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
In a discussion about nuclear weapons the probability of someone incorrectly using the term "Mutually Assured Destruction" approaches unity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Again, this is a reasonable term to use in discussion. For instance, Godwin's law permits people to talk about wwii and about Nazis, but not to COMPARE other people to them.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In any meta discussion, as the length of the discussion reaches infinity, the probability that the discussion will cease being meta and become unsubtle discussion of the meta-topics approaches one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In any unsubtle discussion of meta-topics, the possibility of someone chiming in with a little two-bit philosophy approaches unity. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
For any forum poster describing rhetorical genius as "two-bit philosophy", the probability of being a butthead approaches unity. Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
In any non-serious thread on hatrack, the probability of a pun war erupting approaches unity.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: In any non-serious thread on hatrack, the probability of a pun war erupting approaches unity.
Used to. I don't think it does so much any more. I find this a double edged sword. I don't particularly like puns, but I miss the hatrack that produced them.
Or maybe I'm just reading the wrong threads.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
For each post in which a forum poster must defend his dime store philosophies as "Rhetorical Genius," the chances that he will make a rhetorical error approach unity.
Read your last post again- something went wrong in the beginning.
[ July 09, 2006, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In any thread in which math is a topic, the probability of basic, definition-level mathematical errors approaches unity. The likelihood increases dramatically for posters pointing out rhetorical errors.
Orincoro, probabilities range from 0 to 1="unity". Odds can approach infinity, if an event is very unlikely, but odds are actually fractions (again, always ranging from 0 to 1) colloquially expressed as whole numbers (usually whole numbers.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Seems like there have been a couple of Godwin's law events recently, so I'm bumping this.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
In any thread in which differing tastes collide, the probability of one poster pointing out the spelling errors of another approaches unity.
Furthermore, additional spelling errors are likely to follow, but I have not yet calculated the probability. I'll report back later Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm just getting started on the other thread but I thought I'd point this out: Darwinism=natural selection. If there is a new mechanism for increasing complexity in the theory, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Evolution isn't driven by just natural selection, but by natural selection + random (the randomness isn't essential, we've just observed it) genetic changes.
Are you going to assert next that natural selection + random genetic changes (such as those we observe) can't increase complexity? If so, please provide a definition for complexity so I can provide counterexamples.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tut tut, there's a perfectly good thread for this discussion elsewhere.
I can go drop the "d" word in that thread if needed.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I already did, Pooka, but thanks.
And there is your fallacy, Fugu. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your theory. I don't care if Natural selection + random mutations could have increased complexity. You need to prove that it did.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Go read a definition of a counterexample. A counterexample is an example of something you have said can't happen, actually happening. I can't provide one, though, until you have given a sufficiently specific definition of what can't happen -- which means a definition of complexity.
I do not intend to provide a way in which they 'could' have increased complexity, I intend to provide a way in which they did improve complexity, which I can't do until I know what you think complexity is. If your definition is sufficiently silly, I might instead prove that no increase in complexity (by your definition) would be required to change something from one species to another.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Complexity = Dragons that shoot real fire!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I like where you're going, Pooka. A bombardier beetle's cannon is pretty complex. How did it develop?
Give me an example of how it did develop, not how it might've.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Getting back to the idea of rhetorical laws, I'd like to propose one in which the word "masturbation" is used to describe someone's mental process in order to make them feel ashamed and dirty. I guess we could call it Onan's law.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Resh, no changing the subject. Provide the definition of complexity that you are asserting evolution cannot increase.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
fugu, I've moved it to the other thread. We're all waiting for his response there.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)