Godwin’s Law is a social commentary and has zero footing in logic. In fact, it actually is based on a fallacy of logic which is the use of the double negative. It implies guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. (Wow, we are “implying” guilt by association which would translate to implying an implication.)

Actual guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

ILC did not claim that Kennedy was kind to animals; that Hitler was kind to animals and therefore Kennedy and Hitler shared evil qualities as well.

Godwin’s Law is the type of smart babble that says sooner or later arguments devolve into playing the Hitler analogy. Maybe he has observed something, but when a reference to Hitler is not an actual analogy, except in the mind of the beholder, it is the beholder who has committed the fallacious thinking.

Perhaps you would rest better had ILC said: “Even Saul Alinsky loved animals.” But, then, that hardly serves as a useful trope.

“

In Kennedy’s case, sure, he was out there dramatically throwing his weight around to save some girl from bad Soviet medicine – while doing everything in his power to impose Soviet-like medicine on his fellow Americans, and as he continued to occupy a position that he should have resigned from instantly after having left another young woman to drown.

Was the Hitler reference really necessary?

Oh. My. Goodness.

John, it is you who has tied Hitler in some perverse way to Kennedy.

ILC did not. His statement that “even Hitler was kind to animals” is a relevant trope in showing that “good” things can be said about the most evil of people. In no manner whatsoever did he compare Kennedy to Hitler or imply it.

Your tu quoque fallacy may work on less adequate forums, but it will not fly here.

You owe ILC an apology.

At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”

Twisted.

But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. After all, I’ve seen left-liberal women claim to be feminists, then knock Sarah Palin dishonestly (not reflecting reality) while papering over Bill Clinton’s abuse of women.

“You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?”

I can understand a periodic refraining from criticizing a recently deceased figure who was profoundly wrong and/or was involved in a minor scandal or two. However, Kennedy was a criminal and flaunted the debts to society he was never made to pay. I suppose I can’t blame such a flawed character for taking advantage of an electorate for whom he had such obvious contempt, as they gave him the platform from which he did so much harm. But while the very naturalness and sheer elan of his corruption (similar to the willing, dutiful Eichmann) helps explain him, such an understanding should make him more dangerous, not less so.

Those who would choose Kennedy’s death to exercise the tritest phrases such as “We’re all flawed” or some such condemn themselves with an implied moral equivalence in an effort to pat themselves on the backs for a polite society that we should all know was never Camelot. True, I’m no saint, but I think I can be forgiven if I reject the current hagiography by responding to Kennedy with a flaw of my own, namely taking pride in an unwillingness to forgive.

One of her colleagues added an update:

The report that Kennedy actually solicited Chappaquiddick jokes… would be unbelievable if it didn’t come from a close associate. As grotesque as it is, this explains why Kennedy made a public point of acquiring a Portuguese Water Dog and naming him “Splash”. Then, just in case anybody missed the news, he distributed a book about his new pet.

John, there is a small difference between a man who basically saved his nation… and one who tirelessly worked to damage it. Sorry if that doesn’t meet your approval.

Well, John, the difference is that the comments made by liberals about Ronald Reagan were about Ronald Reagan, and the comments here made about Ted Kennedy are about Ted Kennedy. If that’s not enough to answer your question then I can’t help you.