🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5nvj7m$sv3$1@ocoee.iac.net>, bandit@iac.net (Tim Brown) wrote:
> Lou Duchez (ljduchez@en.com) wrote:

> : Completely unnecessary response, Jack.  Tim brought Godwin's Law down
> : upon himself by invoking the Nazis.  You won.  (For those of you at
> : home, Godwin's Law is: the first party to invoke the Nazis in a Usenet
> : debate, is obviously out of ideas and automatically loses.)

> Voopvoopavoop WRONG!  Godwin's Law is something created by those who don't
> want to confront the sad reality that they are advocating a policy that
> would be found in Nazi Germany.

Tim, EVERY POSSIBLE POLICY can be twisted into having been touted by
the Nazis.  The Nazis even spoke in favor of kindness towards animals
(a PR thing), therefore Berea Animal Rescue is a Nazi organization.

Godwin's Law is something created by those who got tired of listening to
arguments as devoid of redeeming value as vegetarian sausage.

I further propose Duchez's Law, which states that any and all cries of
"Political Correctness" are equally empty and pointless.  So far, in
this very thread, both the pro-ban and anti-ban sides have been called
"Pollitically Correct" ... which simply reinforces my opinion that it's
a meaningless term, since no one can define it.

> : Besides, driving is considered a privilege bestowed only when competency
> : is demonstrated, not a right granted us when we draw our first breath
> : (or possibly even when sperm meets ovum).  So this debate kind of can't
> : go much of anywhere.  Like teenagers from midnight to 5am.

> Voopvoopavoop WRONG!  Driving is a constitutional right protected by the
> International Declaration of Human Rights.

How can it be a "constitutional" right if it isn't protected by the
Constitution at all?  The mind wobbles.

The groovy sound effect almost convinced me you were on to something,
however.