The use of logical fallacies / Nessie craps out

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

The use of logical fallacies / Nessie craps out

Postby Nessie. » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:48 pm)

Logical fallacies are arguments that have been constructed such that they are unsound or lack logic (despite appearing to be logical) or the reasoning is faulty. The study and recognition of the use of fallacies in arguments is part of the study of philosophy. By arguments I mean whereby a person puts forward a case or their evidence to prove or disprove a certain position. For more information on the definition try here

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+fallacy

There are numerous lists of logical fallacies such as

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

It lists the most commonly used fallacies such as strawman, non sequitur, ad hominem, moving the goal posts etc. I have been accused of being pretentious in the past for pointing out the use of logical fallacies. But if someone uses a logical fallacy, their argument is flawed and the conclusion almost certainly wrong because of it.

A reason why I have not gone with denier/revisionist arguments is that they are riddled with logical fallacies, the most common are listed below.

Ad hominems or being abusive. FP Berg at RODOH is being very abusive to me at the moment. Use of abuse is known as the last resort when all else has failed and a person has run out of argument. Poisoning the well, by which comments are made to ridicule or discredit is another form of ad hom and I there have been a few here who have been called on doing so. For example, just because I am not convinced by denier/revisionist arguments does not mean I am closed minded, Jewish or any other dig you may want to consider.

Cherry picking, whereby only evidence that fits the desired outcome is used and all else is rejected. Been-there on RODOH uses cherry picking regularly to make a case of Jewish influence. No effort is made to look for all of the evidence and then reach a conclusion.

Non sequitur, where the conclusion is not properly supported by the premise, usually because there is more than one possible cause or outcome. An example of that is because no one has found a clear order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews in death camps, he did not issue such an order. Just because we have no obvious document does not mean there never was one.

Loaded question, or when did you stop beating your wife? Questions should be open and not have any hint of a desired outcome if any investigation is to be taken seriously.

Argument from ignorance or incredulity. Just because no one knows for sure how something was done does not mean it cannot be done. For example the mass pyres of bodies without huge supplies of wood. The claim of that is impossible when there is evidence that it took place means dismissing it is wrong.

Tu quo que or you too as a way of trying to justify a wrong because others did or may have done similar. Nazi apologists like that argument a lot.

They are the main ones I have found to be in use and I am not the only one as shown here at NIZKOR

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

If denier/revisionists want to be taken seriously they need to avoid logical fallacies like the plague and construct arguments that are properly reasoned and have lots of evidence.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1659
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Moderator » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:01 pm)

Nessie:
If you are able, please give our readers specific examples of these as used by Revisionists when discussing the various issues within the 'holocaust' debate. As it stands now you are just stating that fallacies generally exist ... which no one argues.
BTW, Mr. Berg is / has been warned when he engages in abusive speech, as have you.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby EtienneSC » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:11 pm)

I agree with you (Nessie) on the whole here.

However, you are not distinguishing Logic proper (which would confine logical errors to non sequiturs) from a range of informal errors and rhetorical devices that fail to carry conviction.

In addition, you might mention the misuse of testimony by our opponents, which also involves a logical fallacy or form 'X says that P; therefore P'. The question of testimony belongs more to epistemology than logic and is pretty central to discussing the holocaust as that is the main form of evidence offered in the absence of forensic evidence or persuasive documentation.

Your assertion that the conclusion of an invalid argument is "almost certainly wrong" is an overstatement.

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Atigun » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:26 pm)

Nessie, you're back to using "logical fallacies" as a weasel dodge. Many of the claims of hoaxers are of the "Cadillac Coupe de Ville space ship" variety. Claims such as the 10x25x50 meter mass graves of Treblinka being dug by a Menck & Hambrock dragline equipped with a clamshell bucket and no auxiliary equipment to aid in stockpiling the excavated material. That's the equivalent of someone declaring that they flew their Cadillac Coupe de Ville to the moon and back. Yet when a revisionist says, "Wait a minute, Cadillacs can't fly to the moon and back," you call that a, "fallacy of incredulity" or a, "fallacy of ignorance." In other words, just because we don't believe or don't know how a Cadillac can fly to the moon and back doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, didn't fly a Cadillac to the moon and back. Horse frocky. Cadillacs can't be flown to the moon and M&H draglines can't dig the mass graves as described by Yankel Wiernik in his book, "A Year In Treblinka" or shown on his model of the so-called Treblinka II "death camp." Your claim that is a logical fallacy is simply a weasel dodge.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby hermod » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:43 pm)

One of the greatest fallacies of modern times is: Hitler openly stated that he wanted to get rid of the Jews. Top Zionist Stephen '6 million bleeding arguments in favor of Zionism' Wise claimed in late 1942 that Hitler was getting rid of the Jews by murdering them en masse. Others claimed similar things, among various other things, as part of a usual wartime campaign of atrocity propaganda. Many people, Jews and non-Jews, died in Europe during WW2. So Hitler murdered 6 million Jews in killing factories and killing fields.

A very usual holo-fallacy is: There were concentration camps. That was proved by numerous evidence. There were dead inmates and inmates in very poor health in the last operational German concentration camps. That was proved by shocking pictures. So there was a Holocaust of 6 million Jews during WW2 and the Nazi homicidal gas chambers existed. I've read and heard that idiotic 'argument' hundreds of times. Many people really believe that Holocaust revisionists deny the existence of German concentration camps and the death of any Jew during WW2. Deborah Lipstadt and her clique have done a great job...
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9895
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Hannover » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:55 pm)

Nessie:

How is demanding proof for the alleged 'gas chambers' a "fallacy"?

How is demanding that the alleged enormous mass graves be shown a "fallacy"?

How is demanding that original documents be shown a "fallacy"?

How is pointing out the deranged claims of so called "eyewitnesses" a "fallacy"?

And how is your dodging of the below quote a "fallacy"?
Hannover wrote:
The two main 'gas chambers at Auschwitz / Birkenau were exactly the same, supposedly in Kremas II & III. So let's play along with the storyline. Up to 2000 Jews were supposedly gassed until dead, then they were supposedly taken via an elevator to the crematorium directly above.

Fact: as seen in the plans, this elevator is hand drawn, and is only 4 ft X 9 ft. How in the world could 2000 Jews have been loaded onto a 4 ft x 9 ft. hand drawn elevator in just a few minutes? Remember, the storyline says that the gassings and resultant cremations were non-stop for much of the period in question.

We supposedly have another batch of 2000 Jews waiting outside, supposedly being tricked into thinking they were about to receive showers. It would have been impossible to disentangle all the supposedly dead Jews and load 2000 of them onto to this postage stamp of an elevator, hoist them by hand up to the crematory 'ovens' in just minutes.
And this repeated process meant that the crematory ovens above would not have been capable of cremating them in the time alleged, which meant a build-up, a backlog occurred.
The storyline even states that the backlog of the to-be-cremated-gassed-Jews required stacking them outside. Once again, the alleged 2000 Jews were outside in full view of this laughable backlog claim, but supposedly they still thought they were getting 'showers'. Of course, timely aerial reconnaissance photos show nothing of the kind.

Furthermore, while the Jews were waiting outside, the storyline says that a SS man with a gas mask climbed upon the roof of the Kremas (only maybe 18 inches, or close to it, above the ground, Kremas II & III were largely underground) and dropped Zyklon-B granules into a container and lowered it down into the 'holes' in the roof, into the morgues which were supposedly converted into a gas chamber. The waiting 2000 Jews would have a clear view of the man on the roof's activity, yet these 2000 Jews were supposedly not concerned and still thought they were going to get innocent showers. The storyline is utterly ridiculous.

We're not done.

The Zyklon-B pesticide granules took/take hours to complete the outgassing of their cyanide load. The storyline says that this same SS man on the roof, supposedly wearing a highly visible gas mask, withdrew the container up from the 'gas chambers' in just minutes. Remember, the Zyklon-B pesticide granules were allegedly dumped and lowered into the 'gas chambers'. And since we know that the Zyklon-B pesticide would have taken hours to finish releasing it's cyanide load we have a situation where anyone in the entire area would have been vulnerable to gassing.
Yes, the storyline also says that there were vents which were used to remove the gas, but then we are still in a situation where the entire area is vulnerable to cyanide. Not to mention that this certainly would have been noticed by the alleged waiting 2000 Jews. And where does this SS man in a gas mask put the outgassing Zyklon-B pesticide granules which he has supposedly withdrawn, which would be releasing cyanide for hours?

The entire, bizarre story is unsustainable with even the slightest scrutiny. It's no wonder why Jewish supremacists trot out senile, lying 'survivors' (who wouldn't have even survived if the tall tales were true) for emotional impact. No wonder that there are Thought Crime laws against examining this absurd process. 'House of cards' is an understatement.


The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. Truth needs no protection from scrutiny. The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Breker » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:50 pm)

Don't you Yanks have in your frontier lore a legendary town that is known as Dodge City? We believe that residence would suit those that pretend to debate the increasingly unmanageable "Holocaust" canon.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Atigun » 5 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:39 pm)

Breker wrote:Don't you Yanks have in your frontier lore a legendary town that is known as Dodge City? We believe that residence would suit those that pretend to debate the increasingly unmanageable "Holocaust" canon.
B.


Yes, and we have "Hangtown" and "Tombstone" as fitting abodes for the entire tale of the holocaust. Unfortunately, Hangtown was bowdlerized to "Placerville," but those of us familiar with California gold rush history know what a Hangtown fry is when it's on the menu. :mrgreen:

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Werd » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:13 am)

Posturing like you care about purely analytic logic sure is a nice substitute from having to explain physical impossibilities such as thirty meter deep pits in Belzec and Treblinka as well as corpses turning yellow from carbon monoxide poisoning, isn't it, Nessie? :lol: So, have you come up with any medical literature that says yellow is one of the colours that results from carbon monoxide poisoning? You said it was possible. Did you mean logically possible in that we can visualize it in our minds, or physically possible in that it can happen because it has happened before? The former is of no help and the latter is what matters. Saying, "it's possible" doesn't clarify what kind of possiblity you are talking about, and it also beats having to admit that it is incorrect, which would mean that Wiernik is full of shit. :lol: You are afraid of the truth.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby borjastick » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:55 am)

Nessie your basic thought is fair and worthy of discussion.

However you have missed one of the key issues concerning the holocaust and war. The full story. It's often missing, even when it should be available.

Your use of the word 'fallacy' could well be just another addition to the 'anti-semite' or 'denier' group of words designed to demean the comment from the start.

Rarely do all the facts in war come to light thus we must join the dots and use some logic and background noise to see what makes sense. You want those steps to be deemed illogical and unacceptable. This isn't a science lab.

What revisionsists do is look for the obvious, they pose difficult and logical questions when claims, many of them ridiculous, are made.

You need to understand that most and possibly all revisionists started off as believers but little by little it started to make less sense, the stories we were asked to believe were too ridiculous and so the cracks appeared.

What you want is the perfect storm. It doesn't exist.

What we ask for is simple, proof. Not necessarily total but enough to overcome the obvious whopping holes in the stories. I mean when a group of people equal to the population of Montana, 900,000, goes missing in a wooded clearing only a few acres in dimension why is it a fallacy to ask for proof? The fallacy in that case is the claim itself.

Life isn't always black and white, it is often difficult to understand and quantify and that's where logic and sometimes more has to be used. What always amazes me about the believers is their ability to question nothing and eat everything they are told to.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Bob » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:53 am)

Topic worth of a breaking my silence on this board. Nessie posted reasons which make any debate with exterminationists as waste of time albeit he projected these problems on his opponents.

Nessie - "A reason why I have not gone with denier/revisionist arguments is that they are riddled with logical fallacies, the most common are listed below."

Let´s check where is the truth:

Ad hominems or being abusive - one of the most popular among exterminationists including Nessie. He often calls his opponents as deniers or he makes allusions about Nazi apologists for which he has no evidence leaving aside its complete irrelevance. Exterminationists in general are known for being abusive, most notable are so called HC bloggers, they use all range of obscene and vulgar language.

Cherry picking - Holocaust story is itself based on cherry picking fallacy, is based on numerous bits of several accounts, for instance: some for introduction of killing agent, some for cremation, some for load of the oven etc. = hodge-podge holocaust story. And if there is some gap or problem, exterminationists simply replace it with own made up version claiming it was a mistake. When the accounts are compared in their complete length, they in fact contradicts each other, that´s why exterminationists love cherry picking fallacy while ignoring the inconvenient stuff, especially material evidence. The really bad thing is, that they usually deliberately hide these contradictions and do what they can to not inform readers about them to make people believe how are witnesses in agreement. Hence lying by omission.

Non sequitur - typical for exterminationists including Nessie. For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder. There were four crematoria in Birkenau = there must have been cremation of victims of mass murder. There is a smoke on the photo = there must have been cremation of victims of gassings. Classic non sequiturs ignoring that everything can be easily explained in non criminal way which is exactly what revisionists did and exterminationists never bothered to refute these backed up explanations based on documents and based on facts accepted even by exterminationists (like typhus mortality). When such non criminal explanation exists, and there are reasonable doubts about guilty of accused since we have a non criminal explanation for these events - we must apply a rule "In dubio pro reo" and case closed. As for Nessie´s example - "An example of that is because no one has found a clear order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews in death camps, he did not issue such an order. Just because we have no obvious document does not mean there never was one. " - using the same gun against him "Just because we haven´t documents documenting exactly the fate of all people resettled to the East does not mean there were never any." But such example using his logic does not suit him of course. Another example from Nessie´s logic: "Just because we didn't find any aliens does not mean the aliens didn't collaborate with the Nazis." In short, in Nessie´s world and with his logic, every fantasy is possible. The problem of course is, that contrary to Nessie, most of the people live in the real world and especially court of law must work with what can be really evidenced. Needless to say that there was no extermination of Jews in so called death camps hence is irrelevant fallacy to speculate if Hitler issue such order or not, Nessie and people of his ilk should concentrate on relevant matters.


Loaded question
- very common of course, one of them and probably most notable - What happened to missing Jews? Yet exterminationists do not bother to tell who is missing, They never bothered to search for them and they do not bother to evidence it, they simply assumes that someone is missing because of Germans without any effort to firstly back it up. As If people I saw this morning in the bus should be considered missing only because I have never saw them again - but this conclusion can be reached only after proper investigation which will exclude other possibilities and only then one can ask "where are missing people?". As far as I know, this never happened in the case of holocaust.

Argument from ignorance or incredulity - Nessie´s example is false, if experiments show it cannot be done, then it cannot, simple. Nessie´s belief (or his vague "when there is evidence that it took place") in such event will not change refutation based on experimental basis he has a chance to reproduce himself. What he is still waiting for? To not believe in every nonsense and to have doubts is one of the main instruments of police investigators during their investigations, for instance - a death which looks like a suicide is revealed to be a homicide thanks to nonsensical or impossible circumstances not believed blindly by police. Nessie and exterminationists can be accused of using a fallacy "argument from credulity" - i.e. because they believe in what is served to them does not mean it happened.

Tu quo que or you too - Here is Nessie off again. The point is not "something wrong is fine because you did it too", the point is "why do you make fuss about something what was committed by all sides and why only Germans should be punished for something committed by all? Why the fuss about irrelevant stuff which is fine when it comes to others?" Exterminationists are making lot of fuss about concentrating Jews in conc. camps, forced labor etc, but others did it too and received no Nuremberg Trial, no punishment, everything was fine. Hence we are dealing with irrelevant hystery and clear agenda of post war trials which served only as a show to punish those who lost the war and to divert the attention from the crimes of victors. The goal was obviously not a justice or to punish those who did bad things. When exterminationists are making fuss about such things, then it is quite irrelevant when it comes to the subject of holocaust. They should concentrate on things which make their story of holocaust unique and what is considered as pillars of holocaust, i.e. - on relevant things.

Approach described above is a clear example of"double standard" - let´s see another example. When it suits Nessie, he complains about alleged "deniers and Nazi apologists and their agenda", but when it comes to the situation of "jewish defenders and their agenda" - he simply ignores that those who defend holocaust can do it because of ideological agenda as he claims for his "deniers." Hence if his alleged "deniers´" arguments can be ignored for this alleged reason, then arguments from exterminationists can be ignored too because of the same reason. Another logic typical for exterminationists, they use this ad hominem so often, but they never realize that what they use against "deniers" is valid for "believers" too. Nessie defends holocaust and Jews because he has an ideological agenda = his claims can be ignored. How easy!

Let´s add "You can´t prove a negative" - albeit I do not agree with this on 100% because in some cases you can prove a negative (for instance, we can prove what did not happen to Jews hence is irrelevant if we do not know what happened to them), it is a common principle one should follow, but not our exterminationists of course, they always shout "prove gassings did not happen" and similar stuff when they are in the corner.


--------------

What we have here is a classic example of projection and in some cases Nessie based alleged fallacy on his own misunderstanding of opponents´views, so what we have here is a strawman, another popular fallacy whose examples can be seen in Nessie´s definition of "denial".

Contrary to Nessie, I posted examples of fallacies which are no doubt known to people who spent some time on forum boards.
Last edited by Bob on Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby hermod » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:54 am)

Glad you decided to break your silence, Bob. Your post was a great reading. Good food for thought.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1659
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Moderator » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:02 am)

Nessie:
Please give examples as previously requested.
Moderator wrote:Nessie:
If you are able, please give our readers specific examples of these as used by Revisionists when discussing the various issues within the 'holocaust' debate. As it stands now you are just stating that fallacies generally exist ... which no one argues.
Thank you, M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Nessie. » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:36 am)

Bob wrote:Topic worth of a breaking my silence on this board. Nessie posted reasons which make any debate with exterminationists as waste of time albeit he projected these problems on his opponents.

Nessie - "A reason why I have not gone with denier/revisionist arguments is that they are riddled with logical fallacies, the most common are listed below."

Let´s check where is the truth:

Ad hominems or being abusive - one of the most popular among exterminationists including Nessie. He often calls his opponents as deniers or he makes allusions about Nazi apologists for which he has no evidence leaving aside its complete irrelevance. Exterminationists in general are known for being abusive, most notable are so called HC bloggers, they use all range of obscene and vulgar language.


True, many are abusive. Where I say I can speak with a clear concious on this is that I have hardly ever indulged in such. I have also found that where I disagree with other believers that does not result in the abuse I get from denier/revisionists.

Bob wrote:Cherry picking - Holocaust story is itself based on cherry picking fallacy, is based on numerous bits of several accounts, for instance: some for introduction of killing agent, some for cremation, some for load of the oven etc. = hodge-podge holocaust story. And if there is some gap or problem, exterminationists simply replace it with own made up version claiming it was a mistake. When the accounts are compared in their complete length, they in fact contradicts each other, that´s why exterminationists love cherry picking fallacy while ignoring the inconvenient stuff, especially material evidence. The really bad thing is, that they usually deliberately hide these contradictions and do what they can to not inform readers about them to make people believe how are witnesses in agreement. Hence lying by omission.


I do not see how your descriptive matches cherry picking. Have you got specific examples?

Bob wrote:Non sequitur - typical for exterminationists including Nessie. For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder. There were four crematoria in Birkenau = there must have been cremation of victims of mass murder. There is a smoke on the photo = there must have been cremation of victims of gassings. Classic non sequiturs ignoring that everything can be easily explained in non criminal way which is exactly what revisionists did and exterminationists never bothered to refute these backed up explanations based on documents and based on facts accepted even by exterminationists (like typhus mortality). When such non criminal explanation exists, and there are reasonable doubts about guilty of accused since we have a non criminal explanation for these events - we must apply a rule "In dubio pro reo" and case closed. As for Nessie´s example - "An example of that is because no one has found a clear order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews in death camps, he did not issue such an order. Just because we have no obvious document does not mean there never was one. " - using the same gun against him "Just because we haven´t documents documenting exactly the fate of all people resettled to the East does not mean there were never any." But such example using his logic does not suit him of course. Another example from Nessie´s logic: "Just because we didn't find any aliens does not mean the aliens didn't collaborate with the Nazis." In short, in Nessie´s world and with his logic, every fantasy is possible. The problem of course is, that contrary to Nessie, most of the people live in the real world and especially court of law must work with what can be really evidenced. Needless to say that there was no extermination of Jews in so called death camps hence is irrelevant fallacy to speculate if Hitler issue such order or not, Nessie and people of his ilk should concentrate on relevant matters.


That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau. So that is not a non sequitur. As for re-settlement in the east compared to Hitler order documentation, there is none for either, so we should look for other evidence. I have never claimed that because there are no re-settlement documents therefore there was no re-settlement. That is a strawman as is your descriptive of my supposed logic.


Bob wrote:Loaded question - very common of course, one of them and probably most notable - What happened to missing Jews? Yet exterminationists do not bother to tell who is missing, They never bothered to search for them and they do not bother to evidence it, they simply assumes that someone is missing because of Germans without any effort to firstly back it up. As If people I saw this morning in the bus should be considered missing only because I have never saw them again - but this conclusion can be reached only after proper investigation which will exclude other possibilities and only then one can ask "where are missing people?". As far as I know, this never happened in the case of holocaust.


What happened to the missing Jews is not a loaded question because we have lists of those unaccounted for. For example http://www.yadvashem.org/download/remem ... names2.pdf They remain missing despite extensive searching by the likes of the Red Cross https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... trace.html

Bob wrote:Argument from ignorance or incredulity - Nessie´s example is false, if experiments show it cannot be done, then it cannot, simple. Nessie´s belief (or his vague "when there is evidence that it took place") in such event will not change refutation based on experimental basis he has a chance to reproduce himself. What he is still waiting for? To not believe in every nonsense and to have doubts is one of the main instruments of police investigators during their investigations, for instance - a death which looks like a suicide is revealed to be a homicide thanks to nonsensical or impossible circumstances not believed blindly by police. Nessie and exterminationists can be accused of using a fallacy "argument from credulity" - i.e. because they believe in what is served to them does not mean it happened.


There has been no actual experiment of a mass pyre of corpses. The closest we have are Hindu pyres and they manage with some wood and no gasoline. There has not been very much experimenting regarding this issue and so I stand by it being a fallacy of incredulity to say mass pyres are not possible with the wood and gasoline available.

Bob wrote:Tu quo que or you too - Here is Nessie off again. The point is not "something wrong is fine because you did it too", the point is "why do you make fuss about something what was committed by all sides and why only Germans should be punished for something committed by all? Why the fuss about irrelevant stuff which is fine when it comes to others?" Exterminationists are making lot of fuss about concentrating Jews in conc. camps, forced labor etc, but others did it too and received no Nuremberg Trial, no punishment, everything was fine. Hence we are dealing with irrelevant hystery and clear agenda of post war trials which served only as a show to punish those who lost the war and to divert the attention from the crimes of victors. The goal was obviously not a justice or to punish those who did bad things. When exterminationists are making fuss about such things, then it is quite irrelevant when it comes to the subject of holocaust. They should concentrate on things which make their story of holocaust unique and what is considered as pillars of holocaust, i.e. - on relevant things.


You accepting use of the tu quoque fallacy with your response "why do you make fuss about something what was committed by all sides and why only Germans should be punished for something committed by all?" Are you arguing it is acceptable to use that fallacy?

Bob wrote:Approach described above is a clear example of"double standard" - let´s see another example. When it suits Nessie, he complains about alleged "deniers and Nazi apologists and their agenda", but when it comes to the situation of "jewish defenders and their agenda" - he simply ignores that those who defend holocaust can do it because of ideological agenda as he claims for his "deniers." Hence if his alleged "deniers´" arguments can be ignored for this alleged reason, then arguments from exterminationists can be ignored too because of the same reason. Another logic typical for exterminationists, they use this ad hominem so often, but they never realize that what they use against "deniers" is valid for "believers" too. Nessie defends holocaust and Jews because he has an ideological agenda = his claims can be ignored. How easy!


Please example such.

Bob wrote:Let´s add "You can´t prove a negative" - albeit I do not agree with this on 100% because in some cases you can prove a negative (for instance, we can prove what did not happen to Jews hence is irrelevant if we do not know what happened to them), it is a common principle one should follow, but not our exterminationists of course, they always shout "prove gassings did not happen" and similar stuff when they are in the corner.


There appears to be contradiction there as you say "we can prove what did not happen to Jews" and then berate the exterminationists for "prove gassings did not happen". Each side should evidence their own claims.


Bob wrote:What we have here is a classic example of projection and in some cases Nessie based alleged fallacy on his own misunderstanding of opponents´views, so what we have here is a strawman, another popular fallacy whose examples can be seen in Nessie´s definition of "denial".


Everyone is capable of using fallacies. I do not argue against that. What I am saying is that the denier/revisionist arguments are reliant on fallacies, unlike the orthodox history.

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Bob » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:53 pm)

Nessie wrote:True, many are abusive. Where I say I can speak with a clear concious on this is that I have hardly ever indulged in such. I have also found that where I disagree with other believers that does not result in the abuse I get from denier/revisionists.


So true, fine.


Nessie wrote:I do not see how your descriptive matches cherry picking. Have you got specific examples?


Holocaust story is itself based on cherry picking fallacy, is based on numerous bits of several accounts, for instance: some for introduction of killing agent, some for cremation, some for load of the oven etc. = hodge-podge holocaust story. And if there is some gap or problem, exterminationists simply replace it with own made up version claiming it was a mistake. When the accounts are compared in their complete length, they in fact contradicts each other, that´s why exterminationists love cherry picking fallacy while ignoring the inconvenient stuff, especially material evidence.


What was too hard to understand? Tauber is used for cremation times. Kula for description of so called Kula columns. Nyiszli for ventilation. Tauber for color of corpses etc. and contradictions between them are simply ignored, exterminationists simply pick up what suit their needs.

Nessie wrote:That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau. So that is not a non sequitur. As for re-settlement in the east compared to Hitler order documentation, there is none for either, so we should look for other evidence. I have never claimed that because there are no re-settlement documents therefore there was no re-settlement. That is a strawman as is your descriptive of my supposed logic.


I did not say a word about Dachau, read again examples of non sequiturs in my comment: "For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder. There were four crematoria in Birkenau = there must have been cremation of victims of mass murder. There is a smoke in the photo = there must have been cremation of victims of gassings. Classic non sequiturs" It was you who argued on skeptic forum that there was too large cremation capacity at Auschwitz hence it was meant for criminal purposes, mass cremation of murdered victims. Do you want to deny this non sequitur now or...?

Dachau is still changing its story, use search function on this forum or on Rodoh. You do not consider witness testimony (for instance Franz Blaha) as credible evidence. Good.

I have never claimed that Nessie somewhere wrote "because there are no re-settlement documents therefore there was no re-settlement" hence he is lying. Here again and slowly the passage in question: "using the same gun against him "Just because we haven´t documents documenting exactly the fate of all people resettled to the East does not mean there were never any." But such example using his logic does not suit him of course." As obvious, this is only example using your bad logic and I explicitly stated it, nowhere I said you actually wrote it, it is only an example based on numerous debates when "believers" challenge revisionists for such documents. Instead of accusing me falsely of strawman you should address the point, i.e. your own logic applied to alleged order refutes exterminationists´ position and support your opponents, but for some strange reason, you do not accept it. Simple questions to check it:

If there are no documents proving what happened to all of your allegedly missing Jews, does it mean they did not exist?

If we cannot find all your allegedly missing Jews after the war, does it mean they did not exist?

Is it possible that all of this exist or existed, but now we cannot find it?

Looking forward to see the straight answers which should be in accordance with your logic here: "because no one has found a clear order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews in death camps, he did not issue such an order. Just because we have no obvious document does not mean there never was one. "


Nessie wrote:What happened to the missing Jews is not a loaded question because we have lists of those unaccounted for. For example http://www.yadvashem.org/download/remem ... names2.pdf They remain missing despite extensive searching by the likes of the Red Cross https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... trace.html


First link is simply the notorious Yad Vashem database of names where I see no "unaccounted for" people, but allegedly dead people with place and date of death and everything is based on testimony pages filled by who know who. Have you read it? Obviously not because I am lost as who will search for people who are reported to be dead and this is exactly the point of my comment. They proclaimed during and after the war, that all Jews in question are dead, without any proof and nobody bothered to search for them to find out if that is true. Last but not least, there is not a word about cause of death, hence what, for instance, have some possible typhus victims or victims of bombing in this list have to do with holocaust?

Second link, where exactly I can read about Red Cross doing investigation all around the world (especially in the Soviet Union) after the War to look for "missing Jews", officially reported to be exterminated? Please, quote it because as far as I know, no such investigation have been conducted after the war which is even logical as nobody will look for people officially considered to be exterminated.

Nessie wrote:There has been no actual experiment of a mass pyre of corpses. The closest we have are Hindu pyres and they manage with some wood and no gasoline. There has not been very much experimenting regarding this issue and so I stand by it being a fallacy of incredulity to say mass pyres are not possible with the wood and gasoline available.


Wrong, AFAIK Mattogno et al. quoted very old report(s) on mass cremation (or in better words carbonization) of corpses to prevent spread of diseases and pollution. But I will not look for it now. Anyway, that´s irrelevant as we have data using animal flesh and unless you want to claim animal flesh and human flesh are so different, then your argument is lost. With some wood? Precisely hundreds of kilograms of wood for one corpse depending on the source and with completely different approach: corpses are not stupidly grilled, but actually placed directly in the fire. Your appeal to "incredulity fallacy" is only an excuse since we have plenty of data, is it you who simply do not accept them because they do not fit your belief and you want to hide that fact behind your misuse of this fallacy. What are you waiting for? Simply burn animal flesh to ashes in the way and results claimed for holocaust corpses. Revisionists (or others since not all authors of such experiments do them because of holocaust but their info is valuable) have no problem with such experiments so what you are waiting for?

Another nice example of argument of ignorance and personal incredulity is your own ignorance and incredulity when it comes to allegedly too large cremation capacity you do not believe could have served normal purpose, see above. You do not believe it - irrelevant fallacy, correct?

Nessie wrote:You accepting use of the tu quoque fallacy with your response "why do you make fuss about something what was committed by all sides and why only Germans should be punished for something committed by all?" Are you arguing it is acceptable to use that fallacy?


What I am arguing is clearly stated in my comment.
Please example such.


"Approach described above is a clear example of"double standard" - let´s see another example. When it suits Nessie, he complains about alleged "deniers and Nazi apologists and their agenda", but when it comes to the situation of "jewish defenders and their agenda" - he simply ignores that those who defend holocaust can do it because of ideological agenda as he claims for his "deniers." Hence if his alleged "deniers´" arguments can be ignored for this alleged reason, then arguments from exterminationists can be ignored too because of the same reason. Another logic typical for exterminationists, they use this ad hominem so often, but they never realize that what they use against "deniers" is valid for "believers" too. Nessie defends holocaust and Jews because he has an ideological agenda = his claims can be ignored. How easy!"

What was too hard to understand?

Nessie wrote:There appears to be contradiction there as you say "we can prove what did not happen to Jews" and then berate the exterminationists for "prove gassings did not happen". Each side should evidence their own claims.


What contradiction? Here again: "Let´s add "You can´t prove a negative" - albeit I do not agree with this on 100% because in some cases you can prove a negative (for instance, we can prove what did not happen to Jews hence is irrelevant if we do not know what happened to them), it is a common principle one should follow, but not our exterminationists of course, they always shout "prove gassings did not happen" and similar stuff when they are in the corner."

In short and extra for you, one should not ask to prove a negative, yet exterminationists do it all the time. When I allegedly asked Muehlenkamp or Balsamo AFAIK to prove a negative, they freaked out hence knowing that one should not ask to prove negative yet they are doing it themselves. One can read the story here.

This principle is valid, but in some cases is possible to prove negative and that´s why I accept the challenge in some cases, for instance - proving what did not happen to Jews, that there were never any introduction holes in the ceiling and so on. Why is Nessie talking about contradiction, we are left in dark.

Nessie wrote:Everyone is capable of using fallacies. I do not argue against that. What I am saying is that the denier/revisionist arguments are reliant on fallacies, unlike the orthodox history.


But you did not back it up with examples proving is it a common debating style of revisionists, you simply says so and that´s all. Whereas I pointed out popular common examples of each fallacy and showed your comment to be a projection on your opponents, these fallacies are in fact typical for exterminationists.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: borjastick, MSN [Bot] and 10 guests