Illegality of holocaust denial as an argument for holocaust denial: fallacious?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
A point that holocaust deniers like to make is the fact that some nations have made it illegal to deny the holocaust ("belief in the holocaust is required by law in X country. No other historic fact is like this") is evidence that it is some sort of "Zionist" conspiracy. Are there any fallacies here (it seems to be multiple)?
A similar assertion is made in the man-made climate change debate: "Climate scientists repress/refuse to debate those who deny MMCC, therefor it is a conspiracy."
A similar assertion is made in the man-made climate change debate: "Climate scientists repress/refuse to debate those who deny MMCC, therefor it is a conspiracy."
Answers
2Laws against Holocaust denial don't force people to "believe" in its existence and fails to actually serve as evidence for suppression of information as it's actually more of a measure against the suppression of the Holocaust. I think Alleged Certainty applies here, as well as another fallacy or two. They might incorrectly be attempting to accuse you of Appeal to the Law, which if you didn't even mention the law about Holocaust denial prior to that point would be a strawman argument.
In terms of practical argumentation, if you bring it up first then you'd be better off pointing out that the Holocaust is a historical fact with ample proof of its existence than just pointing out there's a law against it. While pointing out the law can be valid when listing reasons why you shouldn't deny the holocaust, you should also explain why that law exists.
In terms of practical argumentation, if you bring it up first then you'd be better off pointing out that the Holocaust is a historical fact with ample proof of its existence than just pointing out there's a law against it. While pointing out the law can be valid when listing reasons why you shouldn't deny the holocaust, you should also explain why that law exists.
Sounds like
Affirming the Consequent
This is a fairly difficult fallacy to understand or spot. It is categorical in nature and, essentially, means reversing an argument, or putting the cart before the horse, meaning reversing or confusing the general category with the specific/sub-category. Note that in this fallacy the premises/reasons are actually correct or valid; the error is found between the premises and conclusion. Usually, the error occurs because we incorrectly assume that the Premise was a sufficient condition, when in fact it was only a necessary condition (one of many conditions) necessary to prove the conclusion.
Affirming the Consequent
This is a fairly difficult fallacy to understand or spot. It is categorical in nature and, essentially, means reversing an argument, or putting the cart before the horse, meaning reversing or confusing the general category with the specific/sub-category. Note that in this fallacy the premises/reasons are actually correct or valid; the error is found between the premises and conclusion. Usually, the error occurs because we incorrectly assume that the Premise was a sufficient condition, when in fact it was only a necessary condition (one of many conditions) necessary to prove the conclusion.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course