Examples of logically flawed arguments.

[Nessie]

Cherry-picking. In this case, cherry-picking only one part of the definition of words.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20238#p20238

...but Himmler is definitely not referring to an 'extermination program', here. Here is what he says:

It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated [ausgerottet]", says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination [Ausschaltung] of the Jews, extirpation [Ausrottung] ; that's what we're doing." And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew.

Are all seven million Party members announcing [to 80 million Germans], "we are exterminating the Jews"?

AI definitions

- "Ausgerottet" is the past participle of the German verb "ausrotten," meaning eradicated, exterminated, wiped out, or rooted out, used for destroying pests, people, species, ideas, or diseases to the point of extinction or complete removal, like a wolf population being hunted to extinction or a prejudice being stamped out.
- Ausschaltung (German noun) translates to switching off, turning off, disconnection, or elimination.
- Ausrottung (German) means eradication, extermination, wiping out, or extinction.

By cherry-picking definitions and ignoring the definition of extermination and suggesting that elimination cannot be by extermination, Callafangers is trying to re-write history, without an evidenced context of what took place, during and after Himmler spoke.

If the Nazi policy was resettlement, why not say so? Why say, eradicate, exterminate, wipe out, elimination, extinction? Those are odd euphemisms to use, for a programme to remove and resettle Jews. Why did Himmler not use words like "umsiedeln", "siedeln", "Siedlung" or "unterbringen"?

[Nessie]

Argument from incredulity. Arguing that something is just too unbelievable to accept it is true;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=654

Much is made of fuel, much is made of corpses, not much seems to be made of smoke, that would have been visible in Warsaw from a broiling corpse volcano, or 3...

How many accounts of smoke from the corpse burnings at Treblinka are there, taken from, the Warsaw ghetto?

How many pictures? Just, the one, said to be from the uprising? From, the 1960's? Taken from, some place? By, somebody?

Was everybody's camera fucking broken? For, hundreds of miles?

In this case a wholly fictitious scenario, of seeing the smoke from the AR camps in Warsaw, has been invented, to support Stubble's incredulity about the mass cremations, that are evidenced to have taken place inside the camps.

[Keen]

By cherry-picking definitions and ignoring the definition of extermination and suggesting that elimination cannot be by extermination, Callafangers is trying to re-write history, without an evidenced context of what took place, during and after Himmler spoke.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.



Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

...

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people. (That is less than one tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

...

Note: Not one person who espouses the orthodox stories of these five so-called “holocausts within the holocaust” and/or has fallen for the big “scientifically proven” lie has ever mustered the courage and integrity to accept a - HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE. What are they so afraid of? They’re terrified - because they know they have been forensically cornered - and by accepting a challenge, they will expose who the real deniers / liars are.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Wetzelrad]

Nessie, your inability to understand logic has already been the subject of many threads. Cherrypicking and incredulity are two of your own specialties. See especially this thread which thoroughly dismantled your accusations of "logical fallacies".

Cherry-picking. In this case, cherry-picking only one part of the definition of words.
[...]
By cherry-picking definitions and ignoring the definition of extermination and suggesting that elimination cannot be by extermination, Callafangers is trying to re-write history [...]

To anyone who's actually been following the Holocaust debate, this is of course a gross reversal of history. For eighty years straight Holocaust historians and propagandists have been trying to misrepresent quotations as undeniable evidence of genocide when they are at best ambiguous. It was always the revisionist cause to point out that these ambiguous words like "ausrotten" have been mistranslated or are at least open to interpretation. This was Albert Rosenberg's argument against Thomas Dodd at the IMT, it was David Irving's argument against Deborah Lipstadt in his trial, it was Ernst Zundel's argument against Christopher Browning in his trial, and it was Callafangers's argument in that thread.

The Holocaust Narrative's writers and defenders have always relied on the fact that the average person has no ability to challenge a translation of this kind, so when they present a quotation as saying "exterminate", the reader can only assume it as true. It is only with the greatest mendacity that you could ignore this behavior while accusing Callafangers of "cherry-picking only one part of the definition".

[Nessie]

Nessie, your inability to understand logic has already been the subject of many threads. Cherrypicking and incredulity are two of your own specialties. See especially this thread which thoroughly dismantled your accusations of "logical fallacies".

That thread confirms how much so-called revisionists use logically flawed arguments, in lieu of evidence, as they have no evidence. For example...

Cherry-picking. In this case, cherry-picking only one part of the definition of words.
[...]
By cherry-picking definitions and ignoring the definition of extermination and suggesting that elimination cannot be by extermination, Callafangers is trying to re-write history [...]

To anyone who's actually been following the Holocaust debate, this is of course a gross reversal of history. For eighty years straight Holocaust historians and propagandists have been trying to misrepresent quotations as undeniable evidence of genocide when they are at best ambiguous. It was always the revisionist cause to point out that these ambiguous words like "ausrotten" have been mistranslated or are at least open to interpretation. This was Albert Rosenberg's argument against Thomas Dodd at the IMT, it was David Irving's argument against Deborah Lipstadt in his trial, it was Ernst Zundel's argument against Christopher Browning in his trial, and it was Callafangers's argument in that thread.

The Holocaust Narrative's writers and defenders have always relied on the fact that the average person has no ability to challenge a translation of this kind, so when they present a quotation as saying "exterminate", the reader can only assume it as true. It is only with the greatest mendacity that you could ignore this behavior while accusing Callafangers of "cherry-picking only one part of the definition".

Historians say that ausrotten meant exterminate, because that is what the evidence proves happened. Millions of Jews were exterminated, by shooting, gassing and in the camps and ghettos. The aim was to have no Jews left, excepting those who managed to escape or buy their way out.

So-called revisionists claim that is a mistranslation and pick other definitions and suggest, with no evidence, that it referred to a resettlement programme. They demand that everyone believe that instead of being killed, the millions of Jews the Nazis arrested, were still alive at the end of the war. Everyone is expected to ignore that would have left a lot of evidence and instead, the evidence is to the contrary and only a few hundred thousand arrested Jews were alive in 1945. You admit that all you have is argument, hence Zundel presented no evidence, only argument, to counter Browning.

[Keen]

That thread confirms how much so-called revisionists use logically flawed arguments, in lieu of evidence, as they have no evidence.

Says the stupid, pathologically lying coward who cravenly refuses to accept the simple challenge to put its money where its mealy mouth is:

A $1,000.00 bet - can be made for each one of the 100 fraudulently alleged / insinuated - mass graves / burial / cremation pits - of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - wagering that you can conclusively prove that they have been scientifically proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of at least 21 people. (That is less than one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

To accept this - HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE - simply challenge Greg Gerdes (see contact information below) to accept the following - Prove That It Has Been Proven - Wager:

I, _?_, am so confident that the so-called Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II “holocausts within the holocaust” happened as alleged in orthodox historiography, and that the archaeological / forensic / geophysical / scientific investigations of these five sites were legitimate, and that the alleged “huge mass grave discoveries” were conclusively validated; that I am willing to bet Greg Gerdes $1,000.00 that I can definitively prove - in a publicized debate and in a U.S. civil court - that there is a preponderance of conclusively documented and substantiated archaeological / forensic / geophysical / scientific evidence which proves, with 100 % certainty, that _?_ grave number _?_ currently contains the remains of - NO LESS THAN _?_ people. Furthermore, I agree that if I refuse to answer any question or get caught lying during our debate or while in court - I lose the bet / case right then and there.

To cravenly refuse to bet that you can prove what you allege has been proven, is a tacit admission that you know what you allege - has not been proven.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for Nesserto?

What are you so afraid of?