What kind of argument is this?

[Erik]

Dan wrote:

Quote:
Does the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." take the argument out of the denial category?

It would seem designed to create anger and frustration in the population group it was aimed at. It mocks and demeans this target group, and an even handed antiFreespeech law who treat it the same way as someone who writes that the Jews had it good at Auschwitz.

So, I would say it a valuable debating tool.

Mr. Thompson answered:

Dan -- I absolutely agree with you. I think this parody is an excellent debating point for some serious issues.

Dan wrote:

The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

Mr. Thompson wrote earlier:

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems? Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

This “type of argument”, “designed to create anger and frustration in the population group it was aimed at”, is a “valuable debating tool”, and an “excellent debating point for some serious issues”.
“The use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric”.

You recommend voodoo logic and rhetoric then?

[Dan]

This “type of argument”, “designed to create anger and frustration in the population group it was aimed at”, is a “valuable debating tool”, and an “excellent debating point for some serious issues”.
“The use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric”.

You recommend voodoo logic and rhetoric then?

There is no inherent non-sequitor here. It is possible to connect the dots. Hypothetically, the arguement form is inferior in some respects, but still serves a purpose, especially to less well educated people.

[Scott Smith]

Mass-marketers know that in order to sell a product you do not want to confine yourself to rational arguments. So one of the pillars of Democracy-Capitalist society is the importance of irrational arguments to commercialism and even to elections.

You want to target different approaches to different groups and kinds of people. The advertiser makes a big mistake only going with the advertisements that he likes rather than those suggested by his ad man.

In similar fashion, to convey a viewpoint there is a place for crude points and ivory-towered philosophy, without necessarily equating the two. A rousing speech or a slogan suitable only for graffiti often "works" better than a treatise. American politicians learned long ago, for example, that attack ads get more votes than anything issue-oriented.

Independent candidate Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential election drew ridicule and scorn with his economic charts and expensive telecasts trying to explain his ideas. But not among his brighter ideas was to choose a befuddled old war hero for his running mate. But Perot was easy to discredit in a single sentence: "This billionaire wants to be your President. He claims to be a self-made man but his father was a millionaire. Will you let your election be bought?"

[witness]

In similar fashion, to convey a viewpoint there is a place for crude points and ivory-towered philosophy, without necessarily equating the two. A rousing speech or a slogan suitable only for graffiti often "works" better than a treatise.

The lessons of Julius Streicher ..

[Scott Smith]

In similar fashion, to convey a viewpoint there is a place for crude points and ivory-towered philosophy, without necessarily equating the two. A rousing speech or a slogan suitable only for graffiti often "works" better than a treatise.

The lessons of Julius Streicher ..

That is true. And it is why even he served a useful purpose for the Party, even though an embarassment.

[witness]

Thanks for clarification.
Now we finally reached the mutual understanding on the question "what kind of argument is this "

[Scott Smith]

Thanks for clarification.
Now we finally reached the mutual understanding on the question "what kind of argument is this "

Your point being?

[Scott Smith]

An example of Streicher's propaganda:

"How Worker Hartmann Became a National-Socialist: The Jew cries: "We don't care about Germany... The main thing is that things go well for us..."

[Roberto]

The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

I agree with Dan and I am the first one to admit that this is the childish argumentation of some Revisionists.

Such as, Smith?

And as opposed to what less childish "Revisionists", other than Mills and Hebden?

Which category do you consider yourself to belong to?

Anyway, Revisionists especially have to be skeptical of their own skepticism and not fall into orthodox ruts of their own. Being persecuted or legislated against does not necessarily make one right.

Now these statements are interesting, buddy.

You still have a long way to go (until you understand that there's nothing skeptical in the "skepticism" of "Revisionists"), but if you meant the above you just took a step in the right direction.

Congratulations!

[Scott Smith]

The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

I agree with Dan and I am the first one to admit that this is the childish argumentation of some Revisionists.

Such as, Smith?

And as opposed to what less childish "Revisionists", other than Mills and Hebden?

Which category do you consider yourself to belong to?

Anyway, Revisionists especially have to be skeptical of their own skepticism and not fall into orthodox ruts of their own. Being persecuted or legislated against does not necessarily make one right.

Now these statements are interesting, buddy.

You still have a long way to go (until you understand that there's nothing skeptical in the "skepticism" of "Revisionists"), but if you meant the above you just took a step in the right direction.

Congratulations!

Roberto you just don't know what you're talking about.

Nice try.

[Erik]

Witness wrote:

You keep avoiding the question what kind of evidence is enough for you to be convinced that Holocaust happened .
Your pattern approach is to ask an ambiguous question for the sake of it's very ambiguity and then when answered directly become silent for a while .Then to show up just to shoot another ambiguous Bull with the air of profound philosophizing ..
So Erik "How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems"
Does this kind of "approach " deserve a ridicule ?

I am already convinced that the Holocaust happened. I am convinced that the bombing of Dresden took place, too. And WW2. And that the Earth is round, for that matter.

But there are a lot of why’s and what’s and how’s to all those different convictions.

If those interrogative adverbs happen to shoot some “ambiguous Bull”, then it may depend on “whose ox is being gored”, as the saying goes.

Only the knower knows the answer.

If the why’s and what’s and how’s get ambiguous answers with the air of profound knowledge, then perhaps the approach deserves some ridicule.

The ambiguities abound in human history. Airs of profound knowledge, too. The “bull” and the “gored ox” are different aspects of the same body of evidence to this.

Xanthro wrote on another thread:

Scott Smith wrote:
Quote:
I imagine that accidental CO poisonings were quite common with Holzgas conversions, hence the gas-van or murder-van legend.

If you want to prove something is a legend or myth, then you need evidence. Since numerous people have confessed to killing people in the vans, since numerous documentary evidence exists substiating their existence, since numerous eye witnessesed have testified to seeing them used, your simple assertions hold no weight.

If people were to accept the Scott Smith standard of evidence and argumentation, no historical fact would be left standing. I can argue that any historical fact is a lie and conspiracy and that something else happened, especially when I argue that the conspiracy is so vast and perfect as to leave no trace of itself.

It's absurd.

No parody is needed. Just relish the ambiguities!

[David Thompson]

Erik -- What are your thoughts on clarity of expression in human communication?

[witness]

Witness wrote:

You keep avoiding the question what kind of evidence is enough for you to be convinced that Holocaust happened .
Your pattern approach is to ask an ambiguous question for the sake of it's very ambiguity and then when answered directly become silent for a while .Then to show up just to shoot another ambiguous Bull with the air of profound philosophizing ..
So Erik "How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems"
Does this kind of "approach " deserve a ridicule ?

I am already convinced that the Holocaust happened. I am convinced that the bombing of Dresden took place, too. And WW2. And that the Earth is round, for that matter.

But there are a lot of why’s and what’s and how’s to all those different convictions.

If those interrogative adverbs happen to shoot some “ambiguous Bull”, then it may depend on “whose ox is being gored”, as the saying goes.

Only the knower knows the answer.

If the why’s and what’s and how’s get ambiguous answers with the air of profound knowledge, then perhaps the approach deserves some ridicule.

The ambiguities abound in human history. Airs of profound knowledge, too. The “bull” and the “gored ox” are different aspects of the same body of evidence to this.

Xanthro wrote on another thread:

Scott Smith wrote:
Quote:
I imagine that accidental CO poisonings were quite common with Holzgas conversions, hence the gas-van or murder-van legend.

If you want to prove something is a legend or myth, then you need evidence. Since numerous people have confessed to killing people in the vans, since numerous documentary evidence exists substiating their existence, since numerous eye witnessesed have testified to seeing them used, your simple assertions hold no weight.

If people were to accept the Scott Smith standard of evidence and argumentation, no historical fact would be left standing. I can argue that any historical fact is a lie and conspiracy and that something else happened, especially when I argue that the conspiracy is so vast and perfect as to leave no trace of itself.

It's absurd.

No parody is needed. Just relish the ambiguities!

Erik I really appreciate that you get to the point of knowing "that the Earth is round, for that matter " This is quite a progress. Now how have you arrived to this knowledge Erik ?
What kind of the ultimate evidence convinced you that this knowledge is correct ?
What is your criterion according to which you accept an evidence on behalf of some fact ?
If to leave out your favorite ambigious questions?
Let me tell you my point of view
on this matter .
I think that there is no criterion . There is no more rationality in Democracy then in Fascism . There is no more ( and I suspect even less )
rationality
in the Christian concept of mercy then in the Social Darwinism.
That 's true that everything depends on whose bull is being gored.
Even talking from the point of view of the Social Darwinism there could be several positions you could assume according to your desire and all of them would have some ratonal foundation.
For example you can assume the position of Julious Streicher declaring Jews to be parasites and poisonous mushrooms as very well illustrated by the posted by Smith picture from the Sturmer.
Or you can assume the Zionist position and tell that since Jewish IQ in average is above of
the same of the other ethnic groups it is the Jews who sholud be considered as
some
kind of bringers of various joys to humanity.
Both positions are based on some principles
of Social Darwinism.
For me this kind of "rationality" is disgusting .
And even if from the rational point of view the position embracing Christian mercy is much less acceptable plus right away I would be pointed out to the phenomena of Inquisition etc this is my position .
There is no some kind of abstrct and cold objectivity Erik . You choose what is close to your heart.
And no matter what the arguments would be if you love AH no argument ,no evidence would dissuade you from your love.
So whatever position one doesn't accept one can always confront
with all kind of ambigous questions.
Obviously the more obscure these questions are the better.
More profound air from nowhere.

[Roberto]

The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

I agree with Dan and I am the first one to admit that this is the childish argumentation of some Revisionists.

Such as, Smith?

And as opposed to what less childish "Revisionists", other than Mills and Hebden?

Which category do you consider yourself to belong to?

Anyway, Revisionists especially have to be skeptical of their own skepticism and not fall into orthodox ruts of their own. Being persecuted or legislated against does not necessarily make one right.

Now these statements are interesting, buddy.

You still have a long way to go (until you understand that there's nothing skeptical in the "skepticism" of "Revisionists"), but if you meant the above you just took a step in the right direction.

Congratulations!

Roberto you just don't know what you're talking about.

Of course I do. True believers who pretend to be "skeptics" = "Revisionists".

Nice try.

Never mind. I'm a patient teacher.

[David Thompson]

Here are some thoughts on the form of the argument used in the "Dresden hoax" parody. Although the form of argument is often seen in revisionist essays, others employ it as well. It is increasingly used in radio and television discussions, on subjects ranging from foreign policy in the middle east to domestic policy issues.

The salient features of this form of argument are:
(1) a series of claims with little or no underlying evidence, and
(2) the use of as many insults and offensive insinuations as possible to:
(a) emotionally charge the argument,
(b) psychologically distance the target audience from the writer's opponents,
(c) recast complex issues of fact into primitive and simplistic moral terms, and
(d) to challenge the reader to take sides immediately.

This form of argument is irrational but effective. It relies almost exclusively on autosuggestive principles, rather than reason, to make its point.

Keeping this in mind, let's look at the first five sentences of the parody argument.

(1) ”Apparently Mr. Zundel is unaware that recent research conducted by the courageous and politically incorrect truth-seekers of THE MAD REVISIONIST has revealed startling evidence that the bombing of Dresden and other German cities during the conflict known as World War II is in fact an elaborate German propaganda hoax."

This is a great start. The first clause of the sentence begins with a suggestion that the proponent of the opposing view is ignorant ("Apparently Mr. Zundel is unaware"), while characterizing the writer and his supporters as morally superior persons ("courageous and politically incorrect truth-seekers"). By making this distinction, the writer also suggests that his opponents are not courageous, are "politically correct," and do not seek the truth. Without pausing, the next clause of the sentence moves on to a lurid claim ("recent research . . . has revealed startling evidence that the bombing of Dresden and other German cities during the conflict known as World War II is in fact an elaborate German propaganda hoax.").

OK -- the reader's hooked! A hoax! Not just a hoax, but a propaganda hoax; an elaborate propaganda hoax. And it's German, too! An elaborate national propaganda hoax, revealed by recent research and startling new evidence. The reader's eyes have narrowed now. It's a good thing, too. Since the reader's attention is focused on the hoax, he may not ask awkward questions, like "what research?" or "what evidence?"

(2 and 3) "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result."

What is the writer really doing here? He is acknowledging that something happened, so no one can say he's denying the bombing took place. But the words of the acknowledgement not only minimize, but trivialize the event. The unstated suggestion is that the event was grossly and deliberately exaggerated to promote the "elaborate German propaganda hoax." What is the basis for the writer's characterization of the Dresden firestorm as something in which a few buildings might have burned and some people might have been "singed or even killed"? He doesn't say.

(4) "But revisionists are scorned, and even laughed at, when we ask difficult questions about what really caused the tragedy, and how many people were really killed."

Here, the writer abruptly changes the subject. He mentions "the tragedy," but only to focus attention on the revisionists who are trying to get to the bottom of this "hoax." How can the "tragedy" also be a hoax? It can't. The writer is being sarcastically insincere.

(5) "Meanwhile, so many establishment lies about this alleged event have been exposed by revisionist research that its hard to take the normatively accepted version seriously."

Ah! Now we can see that it's not a "tragedy" at all, but an "alleged event." Not only that, but the subject of lies! Establishment lies! Establishment lies which have been exposed by revisionist research. So many establishment lies that it's hard to take the "normatively accepted version" seriously. What about the "tragedy"? The writer finds it hard to take the "tragedy" seriously. And he's obviously an intellectual -- the reader can tell from the phrase "normatively accepted version." The reader is starting to wonder whether he has been taken in by the "establishment" -- have they been lying again? Who or what is the "establishment"? The writer doesn't say. He leaves it up to the imagination of the reader to fill in the description with some personal boogeyman.

So what about this form of argument?

Is this approach effective? Yes.
Is it productive of any understanding of historical issues? No.
Is it offensive? Yes.
Should it be censored? I don't think so.

(More later, if the interest is there.)