Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing...

It would probably ultimately get moved to D&D anyway. You just circumvented that.

 

(hitler was hardly a christian, but that's really not the point here, i suppose)

 

It simply means that you're pointing out the fallacy in an argument, but not saying that your example is on the same level as the original argument.

Argument: I think Obama is a good speaker, which makes me think he'll be a good leader.

Rebuttal: Hitler was a good speaker too.

The 2nd person is not saying Obama is like Hitler. He's suggesting that being a good speaker does automatically not make you a good leader, and he's using Hitler as an example to illustrate that point.

 

Yes. It's an exaggerated, dishonest comparison used to plant a seed in someone's mind. Glenn Beck, of course, is the guy who has made this tactic popular lately. Luckily, it's pretty transparent and the only people who fall for it are the ones stupid enough to believe him in the first place.

*cue MojoMan four paragraph post (cut and paste from somewhere else) explaining how this is the liberals' fault

 

In some cases, yes. But to make the point as clearly as you can, you also want to pick an extreme example anyway that everyone would clearly understand. In my example, you could say Joe Schmoe was also good speaker, but a bad leader, but then people might argue "oh Joe Schmoe wasn't that bad" or whatnot. You WANT the crazy comparison to make the point as effective as possible. No one's going to argue that Hitler wasn't a good speaker, or that he was a good leader (maybe good's not the right word, but you get the idea). So by using Hitler, you make the point that "good speaker does not equal good leader" as succinctly and directly as possible.

 

To me, the "don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing..." part is what separates sensible people from the Glenn Becks. An honest person would use the phrase to clarify the point of the comparison. Glenn Beck just wouldn't include that part, and instead just let the Obama=Hitler implication (in my example) stand.

 

Although it could be argued that Hitler was a good leader (i.e. he had a knack for rallying his countrymen), although not a good person.

 

OK, let's take the first argument (Obama is a good speaker, and therefore I think a good leader) out of the mix so there's no issue of bringing Obama down in stature. Let's just say you were generically trying to demonstrate that good speaking ability does not make one a good leader. Wouldn't Hitler be the perfect example to use? (ignoring bobrek's valid point that one could argue that Hitler was, in fact, a good leader)

And if so, doesn't it make sense that if then had the original argument involving Obama, and you wanted to make the same point, you'd still want to use the best example possible? I don't think it's fair to the Hitler-user to disqualify him from using the most clear argument because he wants to avoid the unfortunate, unintended comparison.

That all said, I know that lots of people DO use it the way you suggest - to implant those seeds or whatnot, and especially so in the political realm. I just don't think it's necessarily the case. I've used it before, and had discussions with others who've used it, and we honestly weren't trying to make the illicit sort of connection.

 

I think you two are discussing different scenarios:

If someone says: Obama's a good speaker. And you reply...So was Hitler. It's a rebuttal. Showing the fallacy as Major says. You could even say "Some people are impressed by what a great speaker Obama is, but Hilter was also a great speaker." Again -- the focus of your sentence is speaker, and you're pointing out people who are good at it.

If, however, you say "Now, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler, but they were both great speakers" that's more like just's OP. You absolutely are comparing Obama to Hitler. The focus of your discussion is Obama, and you're pointing out the attributes he shares with Hitler.

The difference can be subtle. But effective. And those who craft words for a living use it well.

 

i've noticed that sarah palin has five children. you know who else had five kids? andrea yates. don't get me wrong, i'm not comparing sarah palin to andrea yates, it's just that the similarities are EERY.

 

You're missing the comparing argument. If you say "Obama is a good speaker, so was Hitler", you're not saying Obama is an evil man. What you are saying is that saying someone is a good speaker does not make him a good person.

 

It's not as bad as "I'm just saying...."

What does that even mean? You call my mother a w****, but it's okay because you're just saying....

 

Cleverly diguised giddyup thread.

 

ha-ha.... I was wondering if I was going to have to bring this up...

Did you know that both Hitler and Obama were very pragmatic politicians, but don't forget that Hitler was also a psychotic mass murderer. They also both have/had dark hair but only one had a moustache... and I think Obama has two balls!!!!!!

 

Hitler was also a christian. Having said that, I'm not comparing you to Hitler.

 

Here's another example, less directed at a person..

Argument: the Founders clearly wanted us to have the right to bear arms

Rebuttal: (Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the right to bear arms to slavery) but the founders also wanted us to be able to own slaves

Now here, the point of the rebuttal is to point out that just because the founders wanted something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The "Don't get me wrong.." is not as necessary, without that phrase, the next rebuttal could be "slavery and the right to bear arms are totally different issues!" and the discussion gets sidetracked. So here, the purpose of the phrase would be to keep the comparison on the founders, not on the two issues.