As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
By extension this becomes that:
If you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you have effectively ended the discussion: it has nowhere else to go.
I mention this in response of the actions of Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and the deposing of Bob Duncan, and the rapidity that the argument on Stand Firm in Faith ended up mentioning Hitler and the Nazis.
So I have a further small extension and shift of emphasis to Godwin's Law:
If you have to mention Hitler and the Nazis, for something that did not involve the magnitude of Hitler and the Nazis, then you have run out of a credible argument.
I shall call this Pluralist's Extension, assuming no one thought of it first, which I suppose I ought to find out as I would if I was doing some academic writing.
There might be another law too. I am sure this is unique, so this is Pluralist's Law:
As an evangelical discussion disputing the orthodoxy of another grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Unitarians approaches one. If you have to mention Unitarians or Unitarianism, for something that does not equate to Unitarianism, then you have run out of a credible argument.
Stand Firm in Faith (and all the rest) regularly achieves that one.