Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Discussions
User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by Aaron Richards » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:46 pm

You only then have a solid counter-argument if it consists of sourced claims that can refute the opposing party's argument. I have decided to show how easily most of "rebuttals" by revisionists are based on nothing but fallacious arguments that do not do this:

Ad hominem (trying to create an argument by name-calling the opposing party)
Ex: You zion-shilling, hasbara-trained, hook-nosed, hand-wringing, shekel-grubbing JIDF khazar kike-rat!


Strawman ("..that is not what I said", i.e. trying to create an argument by remolding the opposing party's argument into something it isn't, but is something more easily refutable)
Example: I have studied every single Nazi camp extensively, and I'm sorry, but it is a technical, logistical and mathematical impossibility for the Nazis to have gassed six million Jews.


Begging the question (trying to create an argument based on an unproven premise, aka circular reasoning)
Example: The holocaust is a hoax because historians are controlled by Jews.


Non sequitur / Affirming a disjunct (Either A is true, or B is true. Since B is true, A must be false)
Example: Either the holocaust happened, or "survivors" lied to the public. There are "survivors" who have lied to the public. Therefore the holocaust didn't happen.


Argumentum ex silentio / Argument from silence (trying to create an argument based on the lack of proof regarding an opposing party's position)
Example: There is no surviving Hitler order for the Final Solution to the Jewish question by means of physical extermination, so he never gave it and it didn't happen.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam / Argument from ignorance (trying to create an argument by saying whatever you say is true until it has been proven false)
Example: Look. I went to some modern crematories and asked how long the cremation of an adult human body takes on average in their institution and they said several hours. If modern crematories can cremate a body only after several hours, how on earth could those ol' Auschwitz magic ovens cremate several bodies at a time faster than this??? The same applies to your giant magic jew barbecue over at Treblinka and the other AR camps. Until there is a recreation of the Auschwitz oven's cremation capacity or of the giant outdoor cremation pyres in a protocoled, controlled environment that obeys all requirements of the scientific method, my position that they're exaggerated fairy tales remains true.


Genetic fallacy (trying to create an argument based on the origin of your position)
Example: Holocaust revisionism has been an ongoing school of thought for almost 5 decades now, therefore there is clearly merit to it.


Biased sample (trying to create an argument based on empirical data obtained from a biased sample)
Example: I have here with me several academic surveys conducted in the Middle East concerning various scholars' opinion on whether they think key aspects of the holocaust are exaggerated bogus, and guess what???


Burden of proof (trying to create an argument that is diametrically opposed to the opposing party's, but informing the opposing party that the burden of proof for your stance isn't with you)
Example: I boldly state that 6 million Jews dying in the span of 6 years is a logistical, technical impossibility. The burden of proof of this being an obviously impossible feat however does not rest on my shoulders.


False Dilemma/Dichotomy (trying to create an argument by simplifying the problem to only one of two possible outcomes and making it hard for the opposing party to have to settle for the one you didn't choose)
Example 1: Either Auschwitz was a death camp where over a million died, or it had a swimming pool, brothel, and bunny rabbit farm and was therefore a harmless work camp. And given that it really did have the latter...
Example 2: Either the holocaust happened, in which case truth does not fear investigation, or you lock revisionists up because you want to hide the truth they are saying. There is no other explanation.


Argumentum ad misericordiam / Appeal to emotion (trying to create an argument by appealing to the opposing party's emotion when it comes to the plight of one's own party)
Example: Don't you see that there's something fishy about the holocaust industry? Look at all the revisionists rotting away behind bars for merely speaking out their mind! These innocents never murdered anyone! And yet their life's liberty was taken from them...


Argumentum ad absurdum / Appeal to ridicule / Argument from (personal) incredulity / Appeal to common sense (trying to create an argument by voicing out the absurdity of the opposing party's argument)
Example: 900,000 Jews were stuffed into gas chambers much smaller than those of Birkenau, exposed to engine exhaust until they died, then buried until they bloated and the gases started escaping the soil, then exhumed with giant excavator cranes, then cremated on pyres made out of railroad tracks, then ground down and then reburied or strewn across the fields? I cannot imagine anything of the sort; that sounds ridiculous and therefore obviously is!


Argumentum ad verecundiam / Appeal to authority (trying to create an argument based purely and solely on the authority of one's sources)
Example: Former Max-Planck Institute Chemist Germar Rudolf has written a 400 page science report that debunks the homicidal gas chambers. I'll therefore take his word over yours any day, Schlomo.


Tu Quoque (trying to create an argument by pointing out the opposing party held a different position previously than now)
Example: The Auschwitz sign said 4 million people back in the day. Now it says 1.5 million. Historians today settle on 1.1 million. This is proof the current figures can't be taken seriously.


Poisoning the Well (trying to create an argument by pointing out wrongdoings of the opposing party in the past)
Example 1: I should read holocaust books by Jewish historians? Give me a break, why would anyone trust those after Bolshevism, Zionism and crying 6 million throughout the 20th century?
Example 2: Before you waste your time reading that Soviet Extraordinary State Commission for the Investigation of Fascist War Crimes report, need I remind you Soviets lied about Katyn, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Chernobyl and a whole host of other things?



Argumentum ad populum (trying to create an argument by pointing out that a large quantity of people support your position as well)
Example: "Look, in the Middle East I mentioned earlier, where the Ziomedia has barely any foothold, most people think the holostory is based on exaggerations and hyperbole and they KNOW Israel was founded because of it. Only here in the West is your hoax being kept alive thanks to the (((institutions))). The majority of humanity doesn't take your holobologna seriously!!!"


Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("After this, therefore because of this", i.e. trying to create an argument which claims that because B happened after A, A caused B)
Example: There was starvation in Europe after Germany's capitulation in 1945. Allied air raids occurred leading up to this. Therefore, allied air raids are responsible for the starvation in 1945 Europe.


False equivalence / fallacy of inconsistency (a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not)
Example: "You wanna know how history is written by the victor? Nazis put Jewish civilians against their will into camps. Americans put Japanese expats and Japanese-American civilians against their will into camps. Absurd that one side is vilified for this action while the other barely gets a mention."


Special pleading (making a special exception (special plea) in order to keep the "logic" in your argument intact, because without it, your argument will fall apart)

Example: "Of course all these other genocides happened, who in their right mind would deny them, go read a book FFS, but you see the holocaust didn't happen until it can be scientifically, forensically, logistically proven beyond any shred of doubt and we find Hitler's written order on top of it".
Last edited by Aaron Richards on Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:02 am, edited 21 times in total.
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: https://siraaronrichards.imgur.com

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25970
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:12 am

Nessie is gonna love this. :-D
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:43 am

Nessie doesn't come around anymore. We'll only see him of RODOH breaks again.
“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

https://twitter.com/jonronson/status/10 ... 24832?s=21

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by Aaron Richards » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:14 pm

I'm thinking about adding the Special Pleading logical fallacy to the OP, but have trouble coming up with examples.

It's a pretty common fallacious argument used by theists in debates against atheists, and it goes something like this:

T: "Everything must have a creator, including the universe, which was created by The Creator, aka God"

A: "If everything must have a creator, then God must also have a creator, and God's creator must also have a creator and so on."

T: "No, everything except God needs a Creator."

Basically, the fallacy is in making a special exception (special plea) in order to keep the "logic" in your argument intact, because without it, your argument will fall apart.

So any input would be appreciated.

Here's an example I came up with, although not the best:

"Look, there is no forensic evidence that millions of Jews were gassed. As a science person myself, until there is, I'll reserve the right to not accept this as anything more than hearsay. Btw. I don't have to prove to you that the Holodomor was a deliberately organized genocidal famine with the intent to wipe out the Ukrainian people by the two Jews Lazar Kaganovich and Genrikh Yagoda, you need to go look it up; read some books and do the research yourself. Besides, if you doubt it and ask for evidence regarding genocidal intent, you're just a Commie apologist or a Jew."

or basically reverse special pleading:

"Of course all these other genocides happened, why are you even questioning them you crazy person, but the holocaust didn't happen until it can be scientifically, forensically, logistically proven beyond any shred of doubt and we find Hitler's written order on top of it".
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: https://siraaronrichards.imgur.com

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23907
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:59 am

Not a logical fallacy but a pretty embarrassing Mattogno volte-face discovered by Sergey Romanov: "Bunkers, dugouts, Mattogno's honesty."
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23907
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Nov 03, 2018 2:02 pm

more trouble for Il Re di Convoluzione, this time coming from Hans Metzner: "Mattogno's Major Problem on a Gas Van Document"
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Holocaust denier logical fallacies

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 2:46 pm

Thanks, I’m also going to post that in the gas van/Chelmno/Lodz thread.
“They say..that in Slonim they gathered in the town square 14,000 people...and all were machine-gunned. I ask you, is it possible to believe such a thing?...How can the world remain silent? It is probably not true.”
Calel Perechodnik, Polish Jew, 1942

https://twitter.com/jonronson/status/10 ... 24832?s=21