The use of logical fallacies / Nessie craps out

[Hektor]

I would say the topic should be concentrated on the use of logical fallacies as per opening comment, not on witnesses, reports etc. unless they are directly connected with the topic of this thread.
...

Logical fallacies made by those that engage in the Holocaust debate hence Exterminationists and Revisionists. That could perhaps also highlight some arguments Revisionists should not use.

[Hannover]

I would say the topic should be concentrated on the use of logical fallacies as per opening comment, not on witnesses, reports etc. unless they are directly connected with the topic of this thread.

Hence Nessie should answer this post in the first place as he still did not provide requested examples leaving aside dodging of other points:

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.

When someone posts to a thread the contents of their posts are open to challenges. In this case Nessie made statements about alleged selective use of "witnesses, reports", aka: "cherry picking", a previously mentioned fallacy in this thread. 'Fallacies' are the topic of this thread. So, I am challenging him on what he said. Seems spot on to me. The forum awaits Nessie's response.

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

[Bob]

From what I am reading in the latest comments, it appears the debate is now about what in the testimony/report is a lie, what a mistake, what is result of trauma, why etc. hence not related to the topic of "logical fallacies", but more a topic "analysis of testimonies" or something like that.

The only case they are able to admit a lying witnesses, report etc. is in the case which has no relevance to their belief, that´s my experience based on long observation, but needless to say that these cases of admitted lies were very rare, they are so scared of L-word.

I really like the point raised by Hermod. If so called witnesses allegedly said erroneous claims because of trauma etc. isn´t logical to assume with the same way of thinking, that extermination story is product of various individuals suffering from trauma etc. and that´s why there are so many errors, nonsenses, exaggerations etc.? Nessie and people of his ilk somehow did not realize (it requires higher intelligence to predict all consequences) that this argumentation acts as a double edged sword. But as usual, they simply ignore this way how to apply their own argumentation.

Reminds me a case of certain individual who all the time argued (using Hoess memoirs) that crematoria (at Auschwitz) were in hurry planning and construction because open air cremation of gassed transports was too suspicious, because of protests of air defense services. After longer period, when he repeated it ad infinitum, I finally educated this individual about the position of revisionists who already many years ago wrote, that especially in 1942, during the worst situation (typhus epidemic, Krematorium I out of service etc.) the authorities were forced to bury dead prisoners in long mass graves (visible in the aerial photos). And later, agreeing with orthodox version on late September 1942, they dug them up and burned them in the course of following weeks together with newly deceased because of sanitary reasons. This of course means that argumentation of that individual is valid for revisionists as well since cremation of deceased non-gassed people will produce the same claimed problems as for his alleged gassed victims, i.e. fire, smoke, stench. This was a quite hilarious and absurd moment and he was of course very uncomfortable to learn after all that years what is the position of those he attacks since he obviously never bothered to read these relevant parts and was too late to backpedal and change the strategy. He of course didn´t want to admit a double edged nature of his argumentation which flushed his position regarding the need of crematoria down the toilet. Also, this was one of the reasons why not to bother with him anymore since this case exposed the "quality" of this user in its full glory. At least it was a fun.

[Nessie.]

I would say the topic should be concentrated on the use of logical fallacies as per opening comment, not on witnesses, reports etc. unless they are directly connected with the topic of this thread.
...

Logical fallacies made by those that engage in the Holocaust debate hence Exterminationists and Revisionists. That could perhaps also highlight some arguments Revisionists should not use.

Exactly and logical fallacies used by exterminationists weaken or destroy their arguments as well.

[Balsamo]

I wonder what Nessie thinks about the Polish wartime 'report' which said there was a mobile gas chamber that traveled along the mass graves and unloaded the corpses into them at Treblinka.

Here are the specifics, plus there was the more casual option of exiting the 'gas chambers', strolling to the mass graves, and jumping in.

Gas chambers on wheels in Treblinka, which dumped their victims directly into burning pits; delayed-action poison gas that allowed the victims to leave the gas chambers and walk to the mass graves by themselves;[11]

[11] Reports of the Polish underground movement, Archiv der Polnischen Vereinigten Arbeiterpartei, 202/III, v. 7, pp. 120f., quoted in: P. Longerich, op. cit.(note 271), p. 438.

Fallacies Nessie?

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

Hi Hannover,

Aren't those Polish underground reports at the center- the main source - of Enrique Aynat paper that argues that there were no gaz chambers at Auschwitz? I have read it a long time ago, and iirc, his theory is that if there were gaz chambers at A, it would be in the Report...hum...
The question is then should one use something that contains obvious craps or leave it completely?

I think that what Nessie meant, when he said

Picking out what is accurate and discarding what is not after checking is not cherry picking.

is that it is the historian's job to criticize and analyse sources and to use them accordingly. So in this case, it is important to know how those reports were made, by who, at what time...That does not mean that those reports have to be dismissed as a whole... Some elements in the reports can be corroborated by other sources, some not and those are to be rejected.

Now if one is of the opinion that those reports are to be left completly, then the whole work of Enrique Aynat has to be dismissed as well.
No to do so would then be an obvious example of Double Standards.

Cherry picking is something different, a perfect example of revisionists cherry picking would be the use of the testimony of Marc Klein - to describe Auschwitz as a not so bad place...and the swimming pool...football matches, etc...while ignoring and rejecting the rest of his testimony as bullshit...most of the time it is just ignored as if non-existent.

[Hannover]

Highly irrelevant, Balsamo, since the alleged gas chambers are impossible as alleged.

As for Aynat, here you go.

'Neither trace nor proof:
The seven Auschwitz 'Gassing' sites
According to Jean-Claude Pressac'
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/Aynat177-206.html
and:
'A Visit to Auschwitz'
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p-99_Aynat.html

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

[Balsamo]

In this topic, whether gas chambers are possible or not is not the subject.
It is about the use of fallacies to make a point, which is not exclusive to Revisionists, i conceed it.

What makes this topic interresting is that it meant to be purely theoretical...Of course, Nessie and i, will post the revisionists' ones, and as Bob did, you'll be posting the case where "bad exterminationists" use them...

In the case i gave, as far as the article i read is concerned, Aynat based it on the absence of mentions of homicidal gas chambers in those reports...
As the same reports do make crazy allegations as the one you mentioned, the question is "what to do with these reports ?" Should one use them or not? The answer to this question is what matters, because there is no middle play other the one defended by historians. I have no critics to Aynat paper, except that it is only based on this very source - the underground reports - but, isolated, he made his point. But if one have to dismiss a source because of some of its silly contents, then Aynat makes no point at all, as it is based on a "no-source".

Nessie's topic is a good opportunities for both sides to make a review on the flaws of both methods of argumentation.

I mean not all topic should end up with the "Auschwitz gaz chambers", right?

Now, my question was, can the use of Marc Klein testimony by most Revisionist's sites be assimilated to "cherry picking" or not.
No surprise, i think YES.
If you think otherwise, which i assume, please tell me why.


the moderator rightly asked for examples of fallacies made by some revisionist argumentations, i gave one...I am well aware that some of the other side also use them...So why not let's keep the topic on this very subject?

[Hannover]

Science and the utter lack of verifiable, visible human remains is what blows apart the 'holocaust' storyline. Silly naval gazing on topics "purely theoretical" are irrelevant distractions.

Your 'cherry picking" canard just doesn't hold up upon examination of the body of Revisionist research. 'Cherry picking' implies that Revisionists only have the slightest speck of misspoken words by a mere few on their side when in fact Revisionist research is simply overwhelming in all regards.

Nessie said, thinking this is all we have:

Irene Zisblatt, 193 mentions in a search of the forum .... Elie Weisel is referenced 80 times. They are referenced as "liars".

1. Yes, they are liars.
2. A search of his forum reveals that "gas chambers" are referenced 7317 times, "mass graves" 2295 times. Oops! Clearly then we do not just "cherry pick" their lot.

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

[hermod]

Now if one is of the opinion that those reports are to be left completly, then the whole work of Enrique Aynat has to be dismissed as well.
No to do so would then be an obvious example of Double Standards.

That would be correct if Aynat had used those reports for what they said. But he used those reports for what they didn't say, for what they failed to mention.

One of the rules of historical research is: if something should have been reported but was not, then it didn't occur. (Aynat's study was based on this rule.) Of course, the opposite (i.e. if something was reported, then it occured) is not true because that would imply that there exist no such things as atrocity propaganda and lies for any purposes.

[Bob]

Cherry picking is something different, a perfect example of revisionists cherry picking would be the use of the testimony of Marc Klein - to describe Auschwitz as a not so bad place...and the swimming pool...football matches, etc...while ignoring and rejecting the rest of his testimony as bullshit...most of the time it is just ignored as if non-existent.

Now, my question was, can the use of Marc Klein testimony by most Revisionist's sites be assimilated to "cherry picking" or not.
No surprise, i think YES.
If you think otherwise, which i assume, please tell me why.

Before accusing of cherry picking you need to firstly demonstrate that your revisionists are aware of the rest of his testimony, only then you can accuse somebody of cherry picking. Now you simply assume, that all revisionists read his account in full when the reality is quite different. This testimony is from the group of less known and practically the only cited part on revisionists´sites is the one about sport activities hence most of the revisionists have no idea about the rest and will give you as source some site.

Secondly, you did not show an example of what was allegedly ignored from his testimony when one cites the sport activities. As far as I know, his testimony is cited for the purpose of demonstration/backing up of sport activities, that´s all. So show us what was deliberately ignored and what should be cited too.

[Balsamo]

Bob,

I am the first to admit that the use - the heay use - of cherry picking and other kind of fallacies are more frequent among people with no or little real knowledge about what they are arguing about or on people - or websites - who wants to capitalize on that ignorance.

I don't have to demonstrate anything : It is obvious that either they don't know the rest of the testimony - in that case it is their fault or they lack of will to know more, or just to check...or they know the rest and just chose to ignore it as it would - and it does - diminish the impact of the chosen part of his testimony. In both case it can be consider as fallacies - cherry picking - by ignorance or by malice.
You can make everything seem real misusing quotes...This is why Historians are required to put their sources...so one check them.

In this case, mentioning sport activities without mentioning who was allowed to practise them, is indeed dishonnest, for the rest, Klein testimony is aailable online so everyone is free to check what he really meant.
Faurisson being on of the promoters of the "Auschwitz summer resort" bogus, i think one can assume that he knows very well the full content of Klein testimony.

Another good example of fallacy is the popular 6 millions - 4 millions (should be 3 millions) = 6 millions. It is very efficient toward ingnorant people, but the people promoting the formula SHOULD be aware of the numbers they are playing with.

Now to be perfectly clear, i join Nessie in saying that the use of fallacies are not exclusive to revisionists.

[Hannover]

I said to Balsamo:

Your 'cherry picking" canard just doesn't hold up upon examination of the body of Revisionist research. 'Cherry picking' implies that Revisionists only have the slightest speck of misspoken words by a mere few on their side when in fact Revisionist research is simply overwhelming in all regards.

which he dodges, and neither he nor Nessie can give valid examples of Revisionists relying upon "cherry picking" of a few minor statements for the basis of the main Revisionists arguments. Using their 'logic' the mere mention of anyone's statements by Revisionists is to be considered "cherry picking" while they continue to dodge the enormous scope of Revisionist research & positions. There is a deep, palpable sense of desperation in their attempted distractions.

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

[Nessie.]

....... and neither he nor Nessie can give valid examples of Revisionists relying upon "cherry picking" of a few minor statements for the basis of the main Revisionists arguments. ......

You know that is because my examples are censored, it is not because I cannot give them.

[Moderator]

....... and neither he nor Nessie can give valid examples of Revisionists relying upon "cherry picking" of a few minor statements for the basis of the main Revisionists arguments. ......

You know that is because my examples are censored, it is not because I cannot give them.

That is complete nonsense and you know it. I suggest you review your posts in this thread and recall your 'Zisblatt and Wiesel' gambit.
M1

[Bob]

I am the first to admit that the use - the heay use - of cherry picking and other kind of fallacies are more frequent among people with no or little real knowledge about what they are arguing about or on people - or websites - who wants to capitalize on that ignorance.

I don't have to demonstrate anything : It is obvious that either they don't know the rest of the testimony - in that case it is their fault or they lack of will to know more, or just to check...or they know the rest and just chose to ignore it as it would - and it does - diminish the impact of the chosen part of his testimony. In both case it can be consider as fallacies - cherry picking - by ignorance or by malice.
You can make everything seem real misusing quotes...This is why Historians are required to put their sources...so one check them.

You cannot accuse somebody of fallacy if, as you admit, somebody does not have the knowledge. Is it like accusing somebody of lying when the accused in fact does not know he told untrue claim because he does not have the knowledge of the truth.

To accuse somebody of cherry picking and of ignorance to not read the full source - these are two different things and cherry picking is worse. Before accusing of the fallacy, you firstly need to demonstrate that the accused was aware of the full information, hence "I don't have to demonstrate anything" is of course false approach.

In this case, mentioning sport activities without mentioning who was allowed to practise them, is indeed dishonnest, for the rest, Klein testimony is aailable online so everyone is free to check what he really meant.
Faurisson being on of the promoters of the "Auschwitz summer resort" bogus, i think one can assume that he knows very well the full content of Klein testimony.

Definition of cherry picking fallacy, wikipedia: "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." (my emphasis).

How exactly not citing the passage: "It should be noted that only the fit and well nourished inmates, who were spared from hard labor, could get engaged in such games that attracted the vivid applause of the masses of the other inmates.”[1] contradicts the position, that soccer, water games and basketball were sport activities practiced at Auschwitz and that attracted vivid applause from those who were among audience?

Another good example of fallacy is the popular 6 millions - 4 millions (should be 3 millions) = 6 millions. It is very efficient toward ingnorant people, but the people promoting the formula SHOULD be aware of the numbers they are playing with.

Maybe you should firstly explain to "ignorant people" where is the fallacy to be sure that this another alleged example is not as "good" as example above.

Now to be perfectly clear, i join Nessie in saying that the use of fallacies are not exclusive to revisionists.

So far, you two had and still have quite big troubles to show some examples contrary to your opponents.

[1] Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust. Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 2nd Edition, The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 410.