Page 5 of 7

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2026 4:23 pm
by Nessie
Stubble is at it again, he is the gift that keeps on giving;

viewtopic.php?p=22178#p22178
In short, I feel that we are all, including yourself, owed history that reflects reality, not fables about piles of dead jews spread across half a continent, murdered in ironic and ridiculous ways (sardine method, diesel exhaust).
https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa."

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:57 pm
by Wetzelrad
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:33 am
Archie wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 7:40 pm This argument against the reality of the Santa Claus story is fallacious according to Nessie's interpretation:

"That Santa could deliver billions of presents in one night would require him to deliver thousands of presents per second which is just totally unbelievable."

This would be "trying to work out" how Santa could deliver so many presents which is not allowed, according to Nessie.
You are revealing that you still do not understand the fallacy. It is evidenced that it is impossible for a man, to get a reindeer drawn sleigh, to fly around the world, delivering presents at any rate, let alone thousands per second.
Can Nessie show us that "evidence"?

It seems Nessie "cannot work out, to his satisfaction, or believe, how it was possible to" deliver all the presents, and therefore "concludes it did not happen."

Nessie does not believe the physical evidence of gifts signed by Santa Clause are sufficient to prove his mass philanthropy. Nessie thinks that because he does not find witnesses to Santa and his giftgiving convincing, that is evidence to prove he doesn't exist.

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa."

Next Nessie will tell us that Santa's giftgiving "is prima facie implausible, therefore it did not happen and we hardly need to bother with the evidence!"

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2026 9:45 pm
by pilgrimofdark
HansHill wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 12:35 am Santa deniers always seem to forget that he literally freezes time.

Checkmate.
I'm a survivor of Christmas. This is my eyewitness testimony, written in 1943 in the forest. Everything is true. I can never forget what happened to me.

Deniers claim that their belief that Santa doesn't exist is evidence he doesn't exist. But those people are frankly idiotic.

For so-called Santa revisionism to be true, a conspiracy involving tens of millions of people, each wrapping presents and placing them under Christmas trees covered in tinsel and Christmas lights, would need to happen every single year on the exact same date, which is impossible.

The Ten Months of Christmas

It happened in October 2021, at the time of the Lenten fast. I was picked up from my winter hearth where the stockings hung by the fireplace.

A large man dressed in red, the color of the blood of my brothers, who was the Santafuhrer, drove down the lane with his whip in his hand. He was accompanied by his large beast Barudolph, who was famous for biting the genitals and buttocks of my nation and people.

Forced to march to the Sleighschlagplatz, I and 130 other people were forced onto covered sleigh wagons.

"Roasted chestnuts," we cried. But the Elfkrainians only robbed us. We got no Christmas chestnuts, and no sugar cookies for nearly 10 hours. On the first day, we were mercilessly beaten by partridgefuhrers in pear trees.

For the next year, we rode the sleigh through the frigid weather, arriving at the North Pole in November 2021. 90% of the people had died. We were never given hot chocolate or peppermint. On the second day, we were fed only moldy turtle dove meat.

When we arrived at the North Pole, a switching sleigh took us in fives to the death camp, named "Candy Cane Corner." The entire time, we were mercilessly beaten by the Elfscharfuhrers. None of us knew what was in store for us. On the third day, I was forced to build a zoo for French hens.

As an experienced carpenter, I was given access to all of the workshops. I hadn't worked as a carpenter for 20 years, but that didn't matter. Nothing mattered. As more people died in the "factory" of the Santafuhrers, I grew apathetic. On the fourth day, we decided that the signal for our rebellion would be calling birds.

It was only after we had wrapped approximately 3.5 million presents that I was allowed my ham dinner and hot cocoa with marshmallows. It was then that we all knew we were going to die. On the fifth day, the Elfkrainians beat to death all of the workers for hiding five gold rings.

As we slaves were forced by the Elfkrainians to drag presents to the sleighs, a crackling fire burned day and night. The smell of baking cookies filled the air. On the sixth day, the geese-a-laying chambers were finally ready to accept new "gift recipients."

The fresh snowfall of Christmas Eve told us our time was over. We would be the next to die. On the seventh day, I saw seven swans a-swimming and I knew the golden dream of freedom for the caged bird was over.

In the distance, we heard church bells ringing. That was the signal for us to begin our escape. On the eighth day, I managed to make contact with the lower workshops, where maids-a-milking were mercilessly beaten if they failed to meet their quota.

With my trusty carpenter's pistol, I was able to kill two Elfkrainians, whom we named "Lalkalas" and "Elfenstein."

Finally, I got home.

I see the evidence of the crimes of the Santafuhrer even now: presents under the Christmas tree.

I can point to them on the ground.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:05 pm
by Archie
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 4:18 pm
Archie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 2:48 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:27 am

If Hincks concluded that the Semitics had not invented cuneiform system purely on his doubts, then yes. If he presented evidence to show it was uncertain that they had, then no.
Another evasive response. You're falling back on conditionals. I quoted the argument for you and you won't say whether you think it's a fallacy because you know that if we continue playing this game you'll end up contradicting yourself like crazy and you'll look like an idiot.

There are no ifs here. Hincks's arguments are not fallacious. He gave good reasons why the conventional wisdom at the time was wrong. Even if Hincks had turned out to be wrong, his arguments would not have been fallacious.
On face value, from the quoted text, he is not using the argument from incredulity, since he is only expressing his doubt. He is not concluding that cuneiform was invented by non-Semitic people, he is merely suspecting that is the case and stating his reasons for that suspicion.

Revisionists do more than express doubts about gassings, graves and cremations. They conclude that they did not happen. That is the step which completes the argument from incredulity.

Despite repeated requests, neither you nor anyone else I have challenged, has been able to explain both logically and evidentially, why, to use words from the passage on Hincks, revisionist "doubts" about seemingly "unnatural" mass gassing, graves and cremations by the Nazis, is evidence to prove none happened.
1) You are drawing an arbitrary and largely unimportant distinction between "concluding" and "suspecting." Level of confidence is ultimately subjective, and it is a gradient, not an absolute binary like you are suggesting.

2) Insisting on 100% confidence for conclusions to be non-fallacious is especially stupid in a domain like history where as a rule conclusions are not absolutely certain. It seems you don't understand the distinction between formal deductive logic and informal logic. The former applies to domains like mathematics and contrived philosophy class syllogisms. Domains like politics, history, economics, archaeology, are far too complex for purely deductive reasoning to get us very far.

3) Saying "X did not happen" in a non-deductive context is absolutely fine. It goes without saying that this reflects the opinion of the person speaking and that it is possible the person could be wrong. It could be softened to something like "X probably did not happen." But such hedging rarely adds anything, and it is generally bad style and rhetorically ineffective. (As I aside, I will add that I think you are lying and this thing about "concluding" vs "suspecting" is a total red herring. It's just something you made up just now to try to explain all of your inconsistencies. You would object just as strongly to revisionists even if we were to word our objections in extremely careful and cautious language.)

4) Confidence and mode of expression are more the realm of rhetoric than pure logic. You can word a conclusion to be more cautious or more confident. You may even vary the tone and approach, depending on the audience. However the position is expressed, the strength of the underlying arguments remains unchanged. Even if someone is guilty of hyperbole of expression, you still must address the underlying arguments.

The side that is most guilty of overstating their conclusions is very obviously the Holocaust side who claim absolute certainty.

You yourself recently admitted that you engage in "hyperbole" to make your case appear stronger than it is.
Archie wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 2:50 pm <<My use of the word "galore" was obvious hyperbole>>

Lmao. Gets caught lying. "I was being hyperbolic." No. You were lying to people on X hoping they wouldn't check and wouldn't know any better. That is deliberate deception.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:13 pm
by Stubble
Spoiler
pilgrimofdark wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 9:45 pm
HansHill wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 12:35 am Santa deniers always seem to forget that he literally freezes time.

Checkmate.
I'm a survivor of Christmas. This is my eyewitness testimony, written in 1943 in the forest. Everything is true. I can never forget what happened to me.

The Ten Months of Christmas

It happened in October 2021, at the time of the Lenten fast. I was picked up from my winter hearth where the stockings hung by the fireplace.

A large man dressed in red, the color of the blood of my brothers, who was the Santafuhrer, drove down the lane with his whip in his hand. He was accompanied by his large beast Barudolph, who was famous for biting the genitals and buttocks of my nation and people.

Forced to march to the Sleighschlagplatz, I and 130 other people were forced onto covered sleigh wagons.

"Roasted chestnuts," we cried. But the Elfkrainians only robbed us. We got no Christmas chestnuts, and no sugar cookies for nearly 10 hours.

For the next year, we rode the sleigh through the frigid weather, arriving at the North Pole in November 2021. 90% of the people had died. We were never given hot chocolate or peppermint.

When we arrived at the North Pole, a switching sleigh took us in fives to the death camp, named "Candy Cane Corner." The entire time, we were mercilessly beaten by the Elfscharfuhrers. None of us knew what was in store for us.

As an experienced carpenter, I was given access to all of the workshops. I hadn't worked as a carpenter for 20 years, but that didn't matter. Nothing mattered. As more people died in the "factory" of the Santafuhrers, I grew apathetic.

It was only after we had wrapped approximately 3.5 million presents that I was allowed my ham dinner and hot cocoa with marshmallows. It was then that we all knew we were going to die.

As we slaves were forced by the Elfkrainians to drag presents to the sleighs, a crackling fire burned day and night. The smell of baking cookies filled the air.

The fresh snowfall of Christmas Eve told us our time was over. We would be the next to die.

In the distance, we heard church bells ringing. That was the signal for us to begin our escape.

With my trusty carpenter's pistol, I was able to kill two Elfkrainians, whom we named "Lalkalas" and "Elfenstein."

Finally, I got home.

I see the evidence of the crimes of the Santafuhrer even now: presents under the Christmas tree.

I can point to them on the ground.
I can't, stop, laughing

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 12:51 am
by Keen
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 4:18 pm Revisionists do more than express doubts about gassings, graves and cremations. They conclude that they did not happen.
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.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 3:39 am
by HansHill
Wetzelrad wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:57 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:33 am
Archie wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 7:40 pm This argument against the reality of the Santa Claus story is fallacious according to Nessie's interpretation:

"That Santa could deliver billions of presents in one night would require him to deliver thousands of presents per second which is just totally unbelievable."

This would be "trying to work out" how Santa could deliver so many presents which is not allowed, according to Nessie.
You are revealing that you still do not understand the fallacy. It is evidenced that it is impossible for a man, to get a reindeer drawn sleigh, to fly around the world, delivering presents at any rate, let alone thousands per second.
Can Nessie show us that "evidence"?

It seems Nessie "cannot work out, to his satisfaction, or believe, how it was possible to" deliver all the presents, and therefore "concludes it did not happen."

Nessie does not believe the physical evidence of gifts signed by Santa Clause are sufficient to prove his mass philanthropy. Nessie thinks that because he does not find witnesses to Santa and his giftgiving convincing, that is evidence to prove he doesn't exist.

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa."

Next Nessie will tell us that Santa's giftgiving "is prima facie implausible, therefore it did not happen and we hardly need to bother with the evidence!"
It gets worse for Nessie. He tells us it is evidenced that Santa cannot fly around the world delivering gifts in one night. Except he has it completely backwards.

There are millions of not billions of children over the years who corroborate this story, and the physical evidence in that Christmas presents were placed under their Christmas tree. Many children also tell us that they leave a full glass of milk by the fireside, and it is GONE in the morning.

This is pretty damning.

In order for Santa Denier Nessie to prove his case, he would need eyewitness testimony from an Elf employed in Santa’s workshop, who can testify that the sleigh failed to take flight. Until he can offer a complete rewriting of what happens in that workshop according to Elves who worked there, the historiography of Santa stands.

His incredulity notwithstanding.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 7:17 am
by Nessie
Wetzelrad wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:57 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 7:33 am
Archie wrote: Wed Feb 18, 2026 7:40 pm This argument against the reality of the Santa Claus story is fallacious according to Nessie's interpretation:

"That Santa could deliver billions of presents in one night would require him to deliver thousands of presents per second which is just totally unbelievable."

This would be "trying to work out" how Santa could deliver so many presents which is not allowed, according to Nessie.
You are revealing that you still do not understand the fallacy. It is evidenced that it is impossible for a man, to get a reindeer drawn sleigh, to fly around the world, delivering presents at any rate, let alone thousands per second.
Can Nessie show us that "evidence"?

It seems Nessie "cannot work out, to his satisfaction, or believe, how it was possible to" deliver all the presents, and therefore "concludes it did not happen."

Nessie does not believe the physical evidence of gifts signed by Santa Clause are sufficient to prove his mass philanthropy. Nessie thinks that because he does not find witnesses to Santa and his giftgiving convincing, that is evidence to prove he doesn't exist.

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa."

Next Nessie will tell us that Santa's giftgiving "is prima facie implausible, therefore it did not happen and we hardly need to bother with the evidence!"
You do see, from the Santa analogy how the argument revisionists rely on and use so often, fails, yet you believe there were no mass gassings, cremations and graves, without any evidence of that.

That reindeers cannot fly and that parents gift the presents from Santa is very well evidenced. It is remarkable that you are trying to compare the evidence of that, to the distinct lack of evidence of the Holocaust was a hoax.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 7:33 am
by Nessie
Archie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:05 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 4:18 pm
Archie wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 2:48 pm

Another evasive response. You're falling back on conditionals. I quoted the argument for you and you won't say whether you think it's a fallacy because you know that if we continue playing this game you'll end up contradicting yourself like crazy and you'll look like an idiot.

There are no ifs here. Hincks's arguments are not fallacious. He gave good reasons why the conventional wisdom at the time was wrong. Even if Hincks had turned out to be wrong, his arguments would not have been fallacious.
On face value, from the quoted text, he is not using the argument from incredulity, since he is only expressing his doubt. He is not concluding that cuneiform was invented by non-Semitic people, he is merely suspecting that is the case and stating his reasons for that suspicion.

Revisionists do more than express doubts about gassings, graves and cremations. They conclude that they did not happen. That is the step which completes the argument from incredulity.

Despite repeated requests, neither you nor anyone else I have challenged, has been able to explain both logically and evidentially, why, to use words from the passage on Hincks, revisionist "doubts" about seemingly "unnatural" mass gassing, graves and cremations by the Nazis, is evidence to prove none happened.
1) You are drawing an arbitrary and largely unimportant distinction between "concluding" and "suspecting." Level of confidence is ultimately subjective, and it is a gradient, not an absolute binary like you are suggesting.
I am drawing a consistent line between hypothesis and proven history. The hypothesis is that there were no gas chambers and mass killings. The proven history is that there was. The line is consistent between the promotion of a hypothesis, which is what you do and the promotion of an evidenced, proven history.
2) Insisting on 100% confidence for conclusions to be non-fallacious is especially stupid in a domain like history where as a rule conclusions are not absolutely certain. It seems you don't understand the distinction between formal deductive logic and informal logic. The former applies to domains like mathematics and contrived philosophy class syllogisms. Domains like politics, history, economics, archaeology, are far too complex for purely deductive reasoning to get us very far.
I have not insisted on 100% confidence, you just made that up. Historians, however, are 100% confident that mass murder happened inside gas chambers, whereas revisionists are far less confident in their various, competing hypothesis about took place inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas.

History is determined by evidence and the gassings are evidenced to a far higher degree than any of the revisionist hypothesis. For a start, and I know you hate this, but 100% of the eyewitnesses agree there were gassings and you have zero eyewitnesses who say something else happened. Don't try and introduce hersay from people who were not eyewitnesses.
3) Saying "X did not happen" in a non-deductive context is absolutely fine. It goes without saying that this reflects the opinion of the person speaking and that it is possible the person could be wrong. It could be softened to something like "X probably did not happen." But such hedging rarely adds anything, and it is generally bad style and rhetorically ineffective. (As I aside, I will add that I think you are lying and this thing about "concluding" vs "suspecting" is a total red herring. It's just something you made up just now to try to explain all of your inconsistencies. You would object just as strongly to revisionists even if we were to word our objections in extremely careful and cautious language.)
OK, so it must be fine to say that the Holocaust was not faked and we can just leave it at that. A claim that gassings probably did not happen, but you may be wrong, would at least be a step in the right direction.
4) Confidence and mode of expression are more the realm of rhetoric than pure logic. You can word a conclusion to be more cautious or more confident. You may even vary the tone and approach, depending on the audience. However the position is expressed, the strength of the underlying arguments remains unchanged. Even if someone is guilty of hyperbole of expression, you still must address the underlying arguments.

The side that is most guilty of overstating their conclusions is very obviously the Holocaust side who claim absolute certainty.

You yourself recently admitted that you engage in "hyperbole" to make your case appear stronger than it is.
Archie wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 2:50 pm <<My use of the word "galore" was obvious hyperbole>>

Lmao. Gets caught lying. "I was being hyperbolic." No. You were lying to people on X hoping they wouldn't check and wouldn't know any better. That is deliberate deception.
At least you are showing better understanding of the use of hyperbole and that it does not necessarily evidence lying. You are correct that the underlying argument must be addressed and you have yet again failed to defend the form of argument you use.

How does disbelief over,

1 - how the cremation pyres were set, prove there were no cremation pyres?
2 - how the gas chambers were vented, prove there were no gas chambers?
3 - how the graves fitted so many corpses, prove there were no mass graves?
4 - how the ovens could cope with so many cremations, prove there were no mass cremations?

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 7:47 am
by Nessie
HansHill wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 3:39 am ...

It gets worse for Nessie. He tells us it is evidenced that Santa cannot fly around the world delivering gifts in one night. Except he has it completely backwards.

There are millions of not billions of children over the years who corroborate this story, and the physical evidence in that Christmas presents were placed under their Christmas tree. Many children also tell us that they leave a full glass of milk by the fireside, and it is GONE in the morning.

This is pretty damning.

In order for Santa Denier Nessie to prove his case, he would need eyewitness testimony from an Elf employed in Santa’s workshop, who can testify that the sleigh failed to take flight. Until he can offer a complete rewriting of what happens in that workshop according to Elves who worked there, the historiography of Santa stands.

His incredulity notwithstanding.
You have chosen quite the hill to die on, with the obviously false Santa analogy. That you are trying to defend your use of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, with the logical fallacy of false analogy, is evidence to prove you do not understand logic.

I do not believe that you believe there is a Santa who can fly around the world delivering presents. Your attempt at an analogy at least shows you have more understanding of evidence, such as your request for an eyewitness who was at the scene. You cannot produce a single eyewitness who worked at the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who you believe.

How does your inability to work out, to your satisfaction, how gassings left no apparent PB and little HCN residue, prove that there were no gas chambers? Why is your incredulity evidence to prove there were no gas chambers?

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 8:50 am
by HansHill
What makes it “obviously false” despite all corroborating evidence?

Work from first principles (google this phrase if you don’t know what it means)

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 11:28 am
by Nessie
HansHill wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 8:50 am What makes it “obviously false” despite all corroborating evidence?
There is no corroborating evidence Santa exists and delivers presents by flying sleigh. There is evidence he is a fictitious character, and it is parents who get the presents.
Work from first principles (google this phrase if you don’t know what it means)
Your display of confidence in your abilities and knowledge, is contradicted by your refusal to defend the argument you make, whereby you claim that because it cannot be explained, and you cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how gassings were possible, whilst leaving no apparent PB and low levels of HCN, that is proof there were no gassings.

Your refusal to defend that argument and explain how it works, logically and evidentially, is proof that it is indefensible. It is a logically and evidentially flawed argument.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 12:11 pm
by HansHill
Non-answer.

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 12:16 pm
by HansHill
Spoiler
pilgrimofdark wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 9:45 pm
HansHill wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 12:35 am Santa deniers always seem to forget that he literally freezes time.

Checkmate.
I'm a survivor of Christmas. This is my eyewitness testimony, written in 1943 in the forest. Everything is true. I can never forget what happened to me.

Deniers claim that their belief that Santa doesn't exist is evidence he doesn't exist. But those people are frankly idiotic.

For so-called Santa revisionism to be true, a conspiracy involving tens of millions of people, each wrapping presents and placing them under Christmas trees covered in tinsel and Christmas lights, would need to happen every single year on the exact same date, which is impossible.

The Ten Months of Christmas

It happened in October 2021, at the time of the Lenten fast. I was picked up from my winter hearth where the stockings hung by the fireplace.

A large man dressed in red, the color of the blood of my brothers, who was the Santafuhrer, drove down the lane with his whip in his hand. He was accompanied by his large beast Barudolph, who was famous for biting the genitals and buttocks of my nation and people.

Forced to march to the Sleighschlagplatz, I and 130 other people were forced onto covered sleigh wagons.

"Roasted chestnuts," we cried. But the Elfkrainians only robbed us. We got no Christmas chestnuts, and no sugar cookies for nearly 10 hours. On the first day, we were mercilessly beaten by partridgefuhrers in pear trees.

For the next year, we rode the sleigh through the frigid weather, arriving at the North Pole in November 2021. 90% of the people had died. We were never given hot chocolate or peppermint. On the second day, we were fed only moldy turtle dove meat.

When we arrived at the North Pole, a switching sleigh took us in fives to the death camp, named "Candy Cane Corner." The entire time, we were mercilessly beaten by the Elfscharfuhrers. None of us knew what was in store for us. On the third day, I was forced to build a zoo for French hens.

As an experienced carpenter, I was given access to all of the workshops. I hadn't worked as a carpenter for 20 years, but that didn't matter. Nothing mattered. As more people died in the "factory" of the Santafuhrers, I grew apathetic. On the fourth day, we decided that the signal for our rebellion would be calling birds.

It was only after we had wrapped approximately 3.5 million presents that I was allowed my ham dinner and hot cocoa with marshmallows. It was then that we all knew we were going to die. On the fifth day, the Elfkrainians beat to death all of the workers for hiding five gold rings.

As we slaves were forced by the Elfkrainians to drag presents to the sleighs, a crackling fire burned day and night. The smell of baking cookies filled the air. On the sixth day, the geese-a-laying chambers were finally ready to accept new "gift recipients."

The fresh snowfall of Christmas Eve told us our time was over. We would be the next to die. On the seventh day, I saw seven swans a-swimming and I knew the golden dream of freedom for the caged bird was over.

In the distance, we heard church bells ringing. That was the signal for us to begin our escape. On the eighth day, I managed to make contact with the lower workshops, where maids-a-milking were mercilessly beaten if they failed to meet their quota.

With my trusty carpenter's pistol, I was able to kill two Elfkrainians, whom we named "Lalkalas" and "Elfenstein."

Finally, I got home.

I see the evidence of the crimes of the Santafuhrer even now: presents under the Christmas tree.

I can point to them on the ground.

Zuckerstangen macht frei

Re: Examples of the argument from incredulity.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2026 12:32 pm
by Nessie
HansHill wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 12:11 pmNon-answer.
The non answer is from you. It is clear that you want to deflect from the topic, by getting a discussion on the evidence, or lack thereof, of Santa and the delivery of presents. It is quite reasonable to be incredulous of the Santa narrative, of flying reindeer and visits to children all over the world in one night, leaving presents, due to its physical impossibility and the evidence it is the parents who leave the presents and where the Santa story came from.

The topic is examples of the argument from incredulity, of which I have provided many, including from you. You have dodged answering the following;

Why don't you justify your claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned as described by the witnesses and from the evidence left of their existence, that proves there never were any such gas chambers?

Why don't you justify your claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned whilst leaving no apparent PB and low traces of HCN, that proves there never were any such gas chambers?

Despite repeated requests, you still are unable to justify your argument that because you doubt gassing was possible, because you cannot work out how it could leave no PB and low HCN residue, that is evidence to prove there never were any gassings.

Please explain and justify, logically and evidentially, how that because you are not convinced by the explanations given by various chemists, as to why there is a lack of PB and low HCN residue, that is reason to believe there were no gassings?

What is it, about your personal incredulity, that means you think you can successfully argue there were no gas chambers?

How does not being able to understand why there is no visible PB and low traces of HCN, evidence that mass gassing did not happen?

How does your inability to work out, to your satisfaction, how gassings left no apparent PB and little HCN residue, prove that there were no gas chambers? Why is your incredulity evidence to prove there were no gas chambers?

The reason why you refuse to deal with the questions and points I have raised, is because you are unable to defend your argument, logically or evidentially. To further prove your lack of understanding of logic and evidence, you are now relying on a false analogy, which is another fallacy!