The Inverse Godwin’s Law

I can’t claim credit for the idea (that honour goes to Slacktivist), nor for the name. Ninglun’s thoughtful post on some of the embarrassingly Talibanesque elements in the Old Testament provoked the following typically thoughtless response from Kevin:

Very impressive! You have blamed the taliban on the jooooooos! Kudos to you for that impressive slight of hand. Weird that Jews don’t kill people for their God, and muslims do (most people think the taliban is a muslim group)… often, but still, what does that matter? It’s the fault of the jooos! They’re so pesky, huh?

A complete strawman if you (unlike Kevin) bother to read Ninglun’s post, but I’ll pass over that, Ninglun having promptly pointed out Kevin’s dishonesty (or at least his profound inability to read for comprehension) to him later in the comments. Godwin’s Law addresses the derailing of discussions by means of the introduction of inappropriate or hyperbolic comparisons of x to Hitler/the Nazis. (“Hitler/the Nazis” can of course be replaced by any sufficiently diabolical entity in this formulation.) An “Inverse Godwin’s Law” would apply to arguments which claim that the critique of x is invalid because x is not as bad as [insert sufficiently diabolical entity here]. “Jews don’t kill people for their God, and muslims do,” claims Kevin, and therefore you’re not allowed to say anything critical about the Old Testament.

Slacktivist calls this “the NABA defense:”