Where is your evidence of how many Jews in those camps in 1945?
Not being reportable present alive is necessarily the case if mass-killing occurred. But it is not evidence FOR Mass-killing. The absence simply doesn't contradict the thesis neither. Killing millions would however produce remains of millions of people among evidence that should be there. Where are there?
The existence of a large number of Jewish camps in 1944 implies that they were full of Jews, just as the existence of houses, factories and schools implies people, workers and students. I have said many times that the term "Liberated" has no meaning as the workers simply walked out like miss X and hundreds of her kin. In fact she admits she was treated well. Where they all went afterwards is not mentioned.
You are admitting to your lack of actual evidence, and all you have is implication. That is because the evidence is the Soviets found largely empty camps as the Nazis fled west, and the Western Allies only found a few hundred thousand Jews in the camps they liberated.
You admit that the only evidence you have, to your suggestion millions of Jews just walked out of camps, is a witness called "Miss X" and supposedly a few hundred people. The actual evidence is that the displaced persons agencies only reported a few hundred thousand Jews needing assistance after the war. There is no evidence of millions of Jews emigrating out of Europe. Every occupied country reported huge drops in their Jewish population and few, if any, returns.I have said many times that the term "Liberated" has no meaning as the workers simply walked out like miss X and hundreds of her kin. In fact she admits she was treated well. Where they all went afterwards is not mentioned.
The definition of a camp is your issue. Most labour camps were in schools, churches, town halls. That would explain why only a few hundred thousand were found in the camps you described; they were simply not in those type of "camps". If you had bothered to follow our research this would be self evident.
All the others obviously thought it was not an issue. They just got on with their lives like most now.You admit that the only evidence you have, to your suggestion millions of Jews just walked out of camps, is a witness called "Miss X" and supposedly a few hundred people.
Name a school, a church and a town hall that was being used to accommodate Jews in 1944.Nazgul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 1:43 pmThe definition of a camp is your issue. Most labour camps were in schools, churches, town halls. That would explain why only a few hundred thousand were found in the camps you described; they were simply not in those type of "camps". If you had bothered to follow our research this would be self evident.
Being imprisoned by the Nazis and then finding somewhere to live and work after the war, is not a non issue. You have zero evidence of millions of Jews being liberated and then as displaced persons.All the others obviously thought it was not an issue. They just got on with their lives like most now.You admit that the only evidence you have, to your suggestion millions of Jews just walked out of camps, is a witness called "Miss X" and supposedly a few hundred people.
People simply do not report non issues.
You have admitted to having no evidence of mass liberations or displaced Jews after the war. Hence you push the burden of proof onto me.Until others prove otherswise, the majority of the Jews were not (((liberated))), but simply disengaged their captors. Please prove otherwise.
Stop asking questions and do some research.
The burden of proof is on you as you are the one pushing the claims. You have in your mind visions of all camps being SS Konzentrationslager, which they clearly were not. There was no mass liberations as people simply walked out. The scenario you think should be the case is pure fiction.You have zero evidence of millions of Jews being liberated and then as displaced persons.
You have admitted to having no evidence of mass liberations or displaced Jews after the war. Hence you push the burden of proof onto me.
The evidence, from the Nazis, is that they took as many prisoners with them as they fled the Soviets, leaving behind largely empty camps. The evidence is that the Soviets found mostly empty camps. There is evidence of only a few hundred thousand Jews as displaced persons.
When you make a claim, it is up to you to do the research to back that claim up.
Link to the source pleaseIf you took time to read other posts, which you obviously do not, you would know that many of the camps did not have names. Your assumptions, such as naming and liberation, even camp definitions prevent you from understanding the reality.
In August 1944 I was drafted into a labour camp of the Organisation Todt ,Unternehmen Bert hold, about 20 miles from Breslau. Our accommodation, first in a barn, later on the dance floor of a country inn
You have failed to evidence millions of people were left behind in the camps, as the Nazis fled and they just walked out. You cannot evidence millions of Jews in Operation Todt camps in 1944-5.The burden of proof is on you as you are the one pushing the claims. You have in your mind visions of all camps being SS Konzentrationslager, which they clearly were not. There was no mass liberations as people simply walked out. The scenario you think should be the case is pure fiction.You have zero evidence of millions of Jews being liberated and then as displaced persons.
You have admitted to having no evidence of mass liberations or displaced Jews after the war. Hence you push the burden of proof onto me.
The evidence, from the Nazis, is that they took as many prisoners with them as they fled the Soviets, leaving behind largely empty camps. The evidence is that the Soviets found mostly empty camps. There is evidence of only a few hundred thousand Jews as displaced persons.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulityArchie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:35 pm Nessie, have you emailed a philosophy professor yet?
Given that you invoke "argument from incredulity" so frequently, and given that you have insisted on continuing to do so even after being shown that your interpretation is incorrect based on all available reference sources, I'm afraid we are at an impasse here due to your stubbornness.
Again, here is ChatGPT (from the first page), which is what I tried to used as an arbiter to settle our dispute: "The appeal to incredulity fallacy specifically refers to rejecting an argument only because it seems hard to believe, without critically assessing the evidence or reasoning provided."
Rudolf's personal doubt is based on his assessment of the evidence, reasoning based on his knowledge of chemistry and his inability to work out how mass gassings could leave so little residue. That fits with both definitions of the fallacy.Germar has published Chemistry of Auschwitz and several other books explaining the reasons for his doubts at great length. If you want to say he's wrong and present counterarguments, fine. But to claim that he rejects the Holocaust ONLY because of personal doubt is absurd.
Rudolf is unable to work out, reason or assess, using his knowledge of chemistry, calculations and limited experimentation, how mass gassings could have taken place. He therefore concludes mass gassings did not take place. That makes his doubt seem reasonable to you, and therefore not a fallacy.Your lazy and incorrect use of "fallacies" to dismiss revisionist arguments out of hand is a violation of the forum rule against unsupported disagreement and if you continue to do it so brazenly you will be banned. If you want to post here, I need to see substantive engagement from you.
Q: I don't know if you are familiar with "Holocaust revisionism" but there is a "revisionist" named Germar Rudolf who published a report presented chemical samples from the walls of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. He argues that the lack of iron cyanide compounds in the homicidal gas chambers is evidence against the claim that there were regular gassings with Zyklon in that room, especially considering that iron cyanide compounds are found in the fumigation chambers where we know Zyklon was regularly used. Would Rudolf's book be an argument from incredulity fallacy?
Nessie, give it up. I know it's hard for you to accept since you've been leaning on this "argument from incredulity" crutch for like a decade, but you are just wrong about this.A: Germar Rudolf's argument, as described, does not fit the definition of an argument from incredulity fallacy. Instead, it is a specific claim based on chemical evidence and comparisons, which can be evaluated on its scientific merits. Whether or not his conclusions are valid depends on the strength of the methodology, evidence, and interpretation, rather than the structure of the argument itself.
Why This Is Not an Argument from Incredulity
Substance of Argument: Rudolf's claim is based on an analysis of chemical samples and a comparison between the presence of iron cyanide compounds in different chambers. This is an evidence-based argument rather than one that relies on disbelief or a lack of imagination.
Focus on Data: An argument from incredulity occurs when someone rejects a claim simply because they "cannot imagine how it could be true." Rudolf's argument, however, hinges on his interpretation of physical and chemical data rather than an appeal to intuition.
[... gives some alternative responses...]
Conclusion
Rudolf’s argument is not an argument from incredulity. It is a scientific claim that must be evaluated based on its evidence and methodology. However, many historians, scientists, and researchers have critiqued his work for methodological flaws and selective reasoning. When assessing such claims, it's crucial to consider the broader context of the evidence and how well the argument holds up under scrutiny.
Why are you using it? Can you not construct your own arguments?
Correct, the key part being "as described". You have limited what you have told AI, to make it appear it is just an opinion based on some testing.Q: I don't know if you are familiar with "Holocaust revisionism" but there is a "revisionist" named Germar Rudolf who published a report presented chemical samples from the walls of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. He argues that the lack of iron cyanide compounds in the homicidal gas chambers is evidence against the claim that there were regular gassings with Zyklon in that room, especially considering that iron cyanide compounds are found in the fumigation chambers where we know Zyklon was regularly used. Would Rudolf's book be an argument from incredulity fallacy?A: Germar Rudolf's argument, as described, does not fit the definition of an argument from incredulity fallacy.
You present AI with Rudolf's scientific evidence, that concludes gas was not used in a certain space. You do not present AI with any of the other evidence, so all it can do is make a decision based on just what you have chosen to tell it. You have failed to tell AI that he admits he may be wrong and that more testing is needed. There are chemists who dispute his findings. There is evidence from documents that gas chambers were constructed in that room and witnesses who worked there all say regular gassings took place in that room. Crucially, you have failed to tell AI that Rudolf uses his finding to claim no gassings took place, in the fact of evidence they did and that there is no evidence of anything other than gassings taking place.Nessie, give it up. I know it's hard for you to accept since you've been leaning on this "argument from incredulity" crutch for like a decade, but you are just wrong about this.Instead, it is a specific claim based on chemical evidence and comparisons, which can be evaluated on its scientific merits. Whether or not his conclusions are valid depends on the strength of the methodology, evidence, and interpretation, rather than the structure of the argument itself.
Why This Is Not an Argument from Incredulity
Substance of Argument: Rudolf's claim is based on an analysis of chemical samples and a comparison between the presence of iron cyanide compounds in different chambers. This is an evidence-based argument rather than one that relies on disbelief or a lack of imagination.
Focus on Data: An argument from incredulity occurs when someone rejects a claim simply because they "cannot imagine how it could be true." Rudolf's argument, however, hinges on his interpretation of physical and chemical data rather than an appeal to intuition.
[... gives some alternative responses...]
Conclusion
Rudolf’s argument is not an argument from incredulity. It is a scientific claim that must be evaluated based on its evidence and methodology. However, many historians, scientists, and researchers have critiqued his work for methodological flaws and selective reasoning. When assessing such claims, it's crucial to consider the broader context of the evidence and how well the argument holds up under scrutiny.
It's seems to me that you do not understand that an incorrect conclusion doesn't have to be a "fallacy."
I have explained all of this to you many times, in my own words, as you well know. Others have as well.
I have not looked to get "seconds" to support me. Sanity Check thinks I overuse fallacies over historical evidence, but he has agreed I am correct in my identification of the fallacies used. The others, who regularly challenge revisionists, are more interested in the history.Archie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 3:46 pmI have explained all of this to you many times, in my own words, as you well know. Others have as well.
The reason I am quoting the AI here is because I know from experience that you are stubborn as a mule and you won't take my word for it. Hence I am using the AI as an arbiter of sorts. And I have invited you to appeal to an arbiter of your choice, which you refuse to do since you know that you won't find anyone intelligent who will endorse your views on this. From what I have seen, you can't even get other online anti-revisionists to second you.
Which is what has happened. Rudolf's scientific conclusions have been challenged and his academic credibility is in tatters.Even if Germar were wrong, this would be demonstrated by detailed scientific and historical arguments that would challenge his assumptions and interpretation of the data.
---
What AI did you use?Incidentally, there was nothing wrong with my prompt to the AI regarding Germar's research. But go ahead and give your own prompt with your own preferred wording.
