Talk:Danth's Law

	This Internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Danths law is also Parker's law? Help!--Waiting for Godot 17:08, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I misread it as Darth's law, which caused a spot of confusion. However, if this is the same as Parker's law, shouldn't it be a redirect? Totnesmartin 17:10, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Google gives more related results to Danth's Law than Parker's law. And as we all know, if something gets more google searches, it must be the right form. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:18, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I wish we had capturebot earlier. There was this real classic wigo once, where Ken

got absolutely schooled in a debate. The other guy later asked a completely different question, on a completely unrelated topic and instead of answering it Ken

basically said "haven't you had enough of a beating today, like when I got you on such and such". To any impartial observer they would say he handed him his arse, but Ken

not only believed he won, but thought he could gloat over it. - π 11:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Aiken

Why was that removed? Fox News and the BNP are both far less relevant to Danth's Law. Bill O'Reilly claiming he won a debate with Richard Dawkins is a lot more what Danth's Law is about. - π 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fox and BNP things are in from when I was expanding the examples. I could only think of two so decided to do the "declaring it so doesn't make it so" thing, which is a generalised form of Danth's Law. I think the Aiken was reverted because it's not strictly true that he said that, although it's not far off. O'Reilly vs Dawkins sounds good, but I can't a direct source of him "declaring" victory. I have the ScienceBlogs report on it but the video has since been pulled from YouTube. ^gnostic 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A corollary?

Reading a bunch of Gamergate-related comment sections, I can't help but wonder if there isn't any corollaries to this law. Namely:

-If someone claims that there's 'tons of evidence' to support his beliefs, there likely isn't. -if someone claims to have used 'fair and balanced arguments', he likely hasn't.

Apologies if I used 'corollary' wrong. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.146.50.218 / talk / contribs}

Seems fair. Add it. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 22:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)