Implausibility of gassing as a method for mass killing

[Nessie]

You have just described him using the logically flawed argument from incredulity. Just because he thinks he has debunked gassings and they are preposterous, does not therefore there were no gassings. To prove something did or did not happen, you need evidence, not argument.

Its not a logical fallacy to describe something as implausible, and generate a discussion around its plausibility and the details of its history and process. You laughably still dont understand logical fallacies. Bring this back to your containment thread if you wish to discuss fallacies there.

For those wondering, yes indeed - our friend Nessie here has an entire thread where people have attempted numerous times to explain logical fallacies to him. Enjoy!

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97

It is a logical fallacy to claim that because you find gassing implausible as a method for mass killing, therefore gassing did not happen.

A discussion about its plausibility, history and process, would involve gathering evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and the physical remains of the gas chambers, and then discuss the events that took place within the buildings the gas chambers were located.

So called, revisionists cannot do that. When they try, they fall apart and contradict each other. They cannot revise the history of the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas to prove that gassings did not happen and what did. When presented with the evidence for gassings, they misrepresent, cherry-pick and down right lie.

The construction and operation of gas chambers by the Nazis is totally plausible because;

1 - it is well within their design and engineering capabilities.
2 - it is evidenced to have happened.

When revisionists claim it is not plausible they;

1 - misrepresent documents, claiming they refer to something else not evidenced to have happened, such as mass showering.
2 - get all excited about the wrong door in Krema I and think it is not possible to have a gas tight door that is made out of wood.
3 - call all the witnesses liars, without showing any understanding of witness evidence, memory or recall.
4 - they lie that every witness was tortured or coerced.
5 - get all excited because they cannot work out how the ovens could have functioned.
6 - they lie that there was no ventilation system for the gas chambers.
7 - they misrepresent evidence, such as documents about sending corpses to the Kremas, as if that proves they were corpse stores.

That is just off the top of my head, there is more.

[HansHill]

.

Person A: This is preposterous.
Person B: I agree.

This mode of conversation is perfectly valid, therefore neither person A nor B are making a logical fallacy.

[Nessie]

.

Person A: This is preposterous.
Person B: I agree.

This mode of conversation is perfectly valid, therefore neither person A nor B are making a logical fallacy.

It is not valid when those people then declare, what they think is preposterous, did not happen.

[HansHill]

It is not valid when those people then declare, what they think is preposterous, did not happen.

Why?

EDIT - actually, answer that in your Logical Fallacy containment thread.