I have a request! It's a lot like me being lazy.

For those who, you know, think about this stuff.

Godwin's Law FAQ

We know Godwin's Law, yes? To remind: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one - link

For fandom, due to our unique specialness, we have Jurisimprudence to tell us of our discussion laws.

Such as Snacky's Law. To remind: Whenever two (or more) groups of people are arguing, anywhere on the web* (usenet, mailing lists, message boards, blogs, etc.), inevitably, someone on one side of the argument (regardless of age or gender) will compare the group on the other side to "those bitchy girls who made everyone's life hell in high school." - link

Here's what I can't find.

The likelihood during any discussion anywhere that someone will compare the discussion issue to starving children/saving whales/environmental activism/global warfare as a reason that discussion is pointless/stupid, the OP is stupid/dramatic, the posters are shallow/vapid, or just to piss people off (fun!).

Law, people. Someone either needs to find it or name it already.

ETA: Randomly, other useful daily laws. Yes, I am reading at Jurisimprudence.

Kerianne's Law of Dramatic Irony - In an online debate, the first person to accuse his opponent of spending too much time on the Internet and/or invite his opponent to "turn off your computer and go outside" automatically loses the argument, and should be subsequently forced to turn off his own computer and go outside. - link

Bookworm's Corollary - The first person to calculate the amount of time elapsed between her posts and her opponent's replies, and conclude that her opponent has been sitting at his computer all day refreshing the page and therefore has no life, automatically loses the argument. - (same link)

Hmm. Fascinating.

Comments

[amireal.livejournal.com]

*waits for answer*

If not, can we call it the Grandma's Law?

The number of cat macros is inversely proportional to the number of minutes until someone tells the OP and their supporters that (while completely ignoring the flaw in the argument) there are actual problems in the world, god can't they just shut up.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

*heee* The cat macros take all.

[vee-fic.livejournal.com]

Isn't that just a turbocharged version of the "Why do you care? It's just fanfic!" argument?

Poisoning the well, it's called in logic: demeaning the terms of the debate in order to hamstring the debate itself.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

Ooh, likes.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

You know, I bet it could be timed to less than an hour before it happens, too. Not a likelihood of if it hits one, but when.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Hey, we did the "starving children" thing in my faculty workshop today. It's a tactic in any debate. Probably when people are working on feeding starving children their critics lecture them about global warming.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

*grins* I could swear I have seen that before, too.

I know there is an internet discussion law for this. Though I am pleased to see a special one regarding the claiming of Aspeger's in any given discussion to explain/defend any known view.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I mean that literally, on a post on one of the snark forums. It was--deeply fascinating.

[fyrdrakken]

The attack based on the "more important things than X!" premise may be interestingly countered by pointing out that you can find something arguably "more important" than pretty much anything, and that if we all save our efforts for nothing less than fighting the eventual heat death of the universe (or at least the entire planet) then absolutely nothing else gets done. With such a fucked-up world, so many problems, so many people in it, let's just let people divide their efforts and work where their enthusiasms lie and chip away at some of this shit, etc., add details as necessary and as suited to context.

I cannot remember ever having had to defend this position. What I also can't remember is whether this is because I never found myself in the position to actual deploy this hypothetical line of argument, or because it actually quashed that point of debate.

Also, in one of those friends list coincidences, within the past day or two I had a friend A) make a post defining her own Linnea's Law (whose subject matter I can't actually remember) and B) reference a letter she sent to Starlog some years ago that was published intact and that to this day divides B&B fans over whether they agree with her on the, "It's just a show!" premise or not.