>>>>>
>>>>>What is your opinion here? How far are you willing to go? Do you accept a European military force? A European president? How about elections? One man, one vote, like we're used to now?
>>>>
>>>>I'm a realist so i do agree with all of the above. In fact i think it's the only way forward.
>>>
>>>"realist"? Does that mean 'there is nothing I can do about it so I must agree with it'?
>>
>>That's essentially the same thought I had. Go back to 1939 Germany. Then say "I'm a realist so I agree with all Hitler says".
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_lawI'm aware of the 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' fallacy and related fallacies. However, that does not mean it is always inappropriate to use Hitler in an argument. From your link:
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate,In the above case, I am only sketching a situation that should make clear that the word 'realist' is not a synonym for agreement with the status quo.
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
