|
|
Illegality of holocaust denial as an argument for holocaust denial: fallacious?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." |
| asked on Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 06:41:03 PM by | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
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. |
| answered on Wednesday, Feb 07, 2018 12:32:50 AM by John Wilson |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Laws 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. |
| answered on Wednesday, Feb 07, 2018 02:29:32 AM by Night |
Comments |
|
| |