I didn't know Hitler killed 6million imaginary Jews

[Invert]

Apparently I'm having difficulty simplifying this enough for you, so I'll resort to using a syllogism:

A claim is arbitrary if it is not supported by some form of proof.
Your claim regarding the Holocaust is unsupported by some form of proof.
Therefore, your claim regarding the Holocaust is arbitrary.

Now, we try it again:
A claim is arbitrary if it is not supported by some form of proof.
My claim regarding the Holocaust is unsupported by some form of proof.
Therefore, my claim regarding the Holocaust is arbitrary.

Do you get it now?

Thank you but I already know what an arbitrary clam is. It just has nothing to do with my question. I'll help you this time with the bolding.

So let's try this again:
How did you demonstrate that they were just as arbitrary as my comments?

Not to be confused with the question that would ask weather or not they were arbitrary. Pay attention!

[Username]

Thank you but I already know what an arbitrary clam is. It just has nothing to do with my question. I'll help you this time with the bolding.

So let's try this again:
How did you demonstrate that they were just as arbitrary as my comments?

Not to be confused with the question that would ask weather or not they were arbitrary. Pay attention!

Apparently I need to hold your hand through every step.

First, here's the definition of arbitrary.  You'll be needing it.

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

The relevant portion of this definition would be Determined by ... whim, and not by ... reason ....

Now, from this, we can conclude that that which is arbitrary is determined by whim and not by reason.  Thus, those things which are arbitrary are unsupported by proof.  Similarly, we can conclude that once a thing has been declared arbitrary, it lacks any sort of substance (or proof, in lay terms), that being counter to the nature of being arbitrary.  From this, we can deduce that there is no way to quantify the degree to which a thing is arbitrary.  Therefore, all things that are arbitrary are equally so.

Now, using this clear reasoning and with every little step present, would you care to repeat your question again, despite the fact that I've answered it multiple times already?

[Mephisto]

Invert's persistance is admirable.

[Invert]

Thank you but I already know what an arbitrary clam is. It just has nothing to do with my question. I'll help you this time with the bolding.

So let's try this again:
How did you demonstrate that they were just as arbitrary as my comments?

Not to be confused with the question that would ask weather or not they were arbitrary. Pay attention!

Apparently I need to hold your hand through every step.

First, here's the definition of arbitrary.  You'll be needing it.

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

The relevant portion of this definition would be Determined by ... whim, and not by ... reason ....

Now, from this, we can conclude that that which is arbitrary is determined by whim and not by reason.  Thus, those things which are arbitrary are unsupported by proof.  Similarly, we can conclude that once a thing has been declared arbitrary, it lacks any sort of substance (or proof, in lay terms), that being counter to the nature of being arbitrary.  From this, we can deduce that there is no way to quantify the degree to which a thing is arbitrary.  Therefore, all things that are arbitrary are equally so.

Now, using this clear reasoning and with every little step present, would you care to repeat your question again, despite the fact that I've answered it multiple times already?

Note to you: You are not holding my hand through this. I am forcing you to take this step by step. It's taking some time but you seem willing.

Once again, thank you but I already knew the definition of arbitrary.

Now back to the steps. Your answer is absolutely beautiful because for the 1st time you have answered my question. In "lay terms" your answer was that they are equally arbitrary because both comments do not have proof. I do not need to ask my question again since you have answered it.

So let's continue. We both agree that your comments do not have proof thus making them arbitrary. What we disagree on is that the comments of the people that argue of the existence of the holocaust are arbitrary. Going back in this post most of the comments that were made by the people that argue of the existence of the holocaust were provided with logical explanation on the existence of holocaust. Whether you question the validity of those logical explanations you can not discredit the comments from having logical explanations. Since you can not discredit that there were logical explanations that came with the comments of the existence of the holocaust or the logical explanations themselves using your answer to my question we can now determine that the comments that were made by the people arguing the existence of the holocaust were in fact not arbitrary.

You fail in your pursuit to demonstrating that the comments made about the existence of holocaust were arbitrary with your arbitrary comments.

[Username]

So let's continue. We both agree that your comments do not have proof thus making them arbitrary. What we disagree on is that the comments of the people that argue of the existence of the holocaust are arbitrary. Going back in this post most of the comments that were made by the people that argue of the existence of the holocaust were provided with logical explanation on the existence of holocaust.

I provided exactly as logical an explanation as the one they offered.  I'm still waiting for something that supports yours and their version better than it does mine.

Whether you question the validity of those logical explanations you can not discredit the comments from having logical explanations. Since you can not discredit that there were logical explanations that came with the comments of the existence of the holocaust or the logical explanations themselves using your answer to my question we can now determine that the comments that were made by the people arguing the existence of the holocaust were in fact not arbitrary.

What "logical explanations" are these?  There's not any single conclusion that stands out from the evidence presented--unless you're seeing something I'm not.  In which case, you should enlighten me as to this amazing evidence that proves your side of things.

[WoOdTroll]

Your version is bias. Its an opinion, in which you think correct, but yet obviously false. You have no proof except your word on what you think happened. A jewish conspiracy...Riiiiiight.

Its been proven that it happened. So shut up already.

[Invert]

I provided exactly as logical an explanation as the one they offered.

Excuse me! You are now stating that you have provided logical explanations for your arguments. With the statement above you are contradicting yourself after agreeing with me that your statement was arbitrary. Since we both agree that an arbitrary comment is a comment without a logical explanation you seem to be confused because you can't decide whether or not your comment was arbitrary. If you can't decide whether or not your comments were arbitrary how can you make that decision about someone else's comments?

To me the logical explanations that were provided are the links to pictures and documents of historical accounts.

We can get into the meaning of "logical explanation" but that will only lead us to personal opinions.

The bottom line is; I am not here to prove to you of the past existence of the holocaust but to discredit your comments. I have achieved that successfully with your help.

You and I no longer have a disagreement, unless you want to back paddle.

[Username]

Excuse me! You are now stating that you have provided logical explanations for your arguments. With the statement above you are contradicting yourself after agreeing with me that your statement was arbitrary. Since we both agree that an arbitrary comment is a comment without a logical explanation you seem to be confused because you can't decide whether or not your comment was arbitrary. If you can't decide whether or not your comments were arbitrary how can you make that decision about someone else's comments?

Oh goodness, Invert, you need to read more carefully.  I said that I provided exactly as logical an explanation as the one offered--namely one that was completely illogical because it had no support.

To me the logical explanations that were provided are the links to pictures and documents of historical accounts.

To me, those are logical evidence supporting the depth of the conspiracy.  Like I said, just as logical.

The bottom line is; I am not here to prove to you of the past existence of the holocaust but to discredit your comments. I have achieved that successfully with your help.

It helps when you read what you want to read, instead of what I've written. 

[Invert]

Oh goodness, Invert, you need to read more carefully.  I said that I provided exactly as logical an explanation as the one offered--namely one that was completely illogical because it had no support.

I read just fine. I consider the logical explanation of comments that support the existence of the holocaust to be logical explanations and since you are comparing them that would mean that you believe that your logical explanations were logical explanations. This brings us back to you contradicting yourself.

To me, those are logical evidence supporting the depth of the conspiracy.  Like I said, just as logical.

To me, those are illogical and the ones that were provided to you were logical. Whether or not they were logical or illogical are they still considered arbitrary?

It helps when you read what you want to read, instead of what I've written. 

I read what you write and with my help you agreed with me and wrote that your comments have no proof. This was my goal.

[Username]

I read just fine. I consider the logical explanation of comments that support the existence of the holocaust to be logical explanations and since you are comparing them that would mean that you believe that your logical explanations were logical explanations. This brings us back to you contradicting yourself.

No, I don't think you do.  I was saying that neither had any "logical" value.  The comparison was between 0 and 0.  I'll also take this opportunity to remind you that just because you believe that your evidence supports your side doesn't mean that it actually does.

To me, those are illogical and the ones that were provided to you were logical. Whether or not they were logical or illogical are they still considered arbitrary?

Once again, it's all arbitrary until you can provide evidence showing actual proof of one position.

I read what you write and with my help you agreed with me and wrote that your comments have no proof. This was my goal.

Yours have no proof either, which has been the point I've been trying to get across all along.

[Invert]

No, I don't think you do.  I was saying that neither had any "logical" value.  The comparison was between 0 and 0.  I'll also take this opportunity to remind you that just because you believe that your evidence supports your side doesn't mean that it actually does.

I think I do. To me the comparison was between 1 and 0 where you believe the 1 to be a 0. I'll also take this opportunity to remind you that just because you believe that someone else's evidence does not support their side doesn't mean that it actually doesn't.

Once again, it's all arbitrary until you can provide evidence showing actual proof of one position.

Once again I am not arguing to prove to you that there was a holocaust but that your argument is arbitrary. We seem to agree on that.

Yours have no proof either, which has been the point I've been trying to get across all along.

What exactly must I prove to you? All I was setting you up for is for you to tell everyone that your comments can not be proven making them arbitrary.

[WoOdTroll]

Which you have.

Hes stupid. Ignore him like you ignore me!

[Username]

I think I do. To me the comparison was between 1 and 0 where you believe the 1 to be a 0. I'll also take this opportunity to remind you that just because you believe that someone else's evidence does not support their side doesn't mean that it actually doesn't.

And I'll once again go back to the very beginning of the argument where I asked for PROOF that your evidence does in fact support your argument.

Once again I am not arguing to prove to you that there was a holocaust but that your argument is arbitrary. We seem to agree on that.

And that yours is just as arbitrary.

What exactly must I prove to you? All I was setting you up for is for you to tell everyone that your comments can not be proven making them arbitrary.

I never claimed my comments could be proven.  All I've said is that yours can't be.

[Invert]

This is good we are getting somewhere.

And I'll once again go back to the very beginning of the argument where I asked for PROOF that your evidence does in fact support your argument.

I am unable to provide you with what you would consider proof since I do not know what exact proof you are looking for. I need to know what kind of information would make you believe in the past existence of the holocaust. If I were to provide you with proof without you specifying the exact proof you are looking for I would just have to post the same thing posted by people trying to provide you with proof you don't consider proof.

And that yours is just as arbitrary.

And what is my argument? I never argued with you about the past existence of the holocaust. I only provided you with my opinions.

I never claimed my comments could be proven.  All I've said is that yours can't be.

And what were my comments that could not be proven?

[Username]

I am unable to provide you with what you would consider proof since I do not know what exact proof you are looking for. I need to know what kind of information would make you believe in the past existence of the holocaust. If I were to provide you with proof without you specifying the exact proof you are looking for I would just have to post the same thing posted by people trying to provide you with proof you don't consider proof.

Exactly, you can't provide proof to support the idea that the Holocaust actually occurred.

And what is my argument? I never argued with you about the past existence of the holocaust. I only provided you with my opinions.

You're clearly a supporter of people who believe the Holocaust occurred.

And what were my comments that could not be proven?

Yours meaning you all possessive and plural.  In other words, the people whose argument you're supporting tacitly by attempting to find flaws in mine.