Holocaust Denial Videos

[Budly]

And I know I am not the only one thinking this.

I assure you, I am no sock. You can contact a moderator to confirm this if you are in doubt.

 

[TSR]

Not moving any goalposts. The rules were laid out by the OP.

.
Yes, you did -- you went from "no one" to "no one here."

And no, the rules are laid out in the MA -- "Budly's" conditions were never accepted by anyone but ... well, "Budly."

Now, are you going to continue to avoid substantive discussion or are you going to tell us
1. Why anyone here should waste time when the topic has been adequately addressed elsewhere
2. What you find lacking in that refutation
.

 

[Horatius]

Not moving any goalposts. The rules were laid out by the OP.

Man, what is it about Holocaust Deniers and their insistence that we follow their rules?


Oh, right.

 

[Horatius]

Now, are you going to continue to avoid substantive discussion or are you going to tell us
1. Why anyone here should waste time when the topic has been adequately addressed elsewhere
2. What you find lacking in that refutation
.

And in the spirit of not re-inventing the wheel, I'll just quote myself here, and ask if this new fellow can give us any better reason to watch Budly's nonsense than Budly himself gave us.....

You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

 

[TSR]

.
BTW, how'd the poker tournament come out -- I was expecting a cartoon....
.

 

[Budly]

.
Yes, you did -- you went from "no one" to "no one here."

Well, by "no one," I meant the posters here. Why isn't that understood?

And no, the rules are laid out in the MA -- "Budly's" conditions were never accepted by anyone but ... well, "Budly."

Well, his rules are quite reasonable. Why don't you want to follow them?

Now, are you going to continue to avoid substantive discussion or are you going to tell us
1. Why anyone here should waste time when the topic has been adequately addressed elsewhere

Because I'd like to see if someone here can refute them. Where are your rebuttals of his videos, by the way?

2. What you find lacking in that refutation
.

They did not in any way prove that a single Jew was ever gassed.

 

[TSR]

Well, by "no one," I meant the posters here. Why isn't that understood?

.
Because it's not what you *said*
.

Well, his rules are quite reasonable. Why don't you want to follow them?

.
Well, that removes all doubt...
.

Because I'd like to see if someone here can refute them. Where are your rebuttals of his videos, by the way?

.
I gave you the link.
.

They did not in any way prove that a single Jew was ever gassed.

.
Which, again, moves the goalposts. You wanted U.V.'s videos rebutted.

They were.

Now, if you want to make arguments of *your* own (say, that there is no proof that any Jew was gassed) while you can, then you can have arguments from here.
.

 

[Budly]

And in the spirit of not re-inventing the wheel, I'll just quote myself here, and ask if this new fellow can give us any better reason to watch Budly's nonsense than Budly himself gave us.....

You mean after all this time you've never watched them?

Well, if you want me to give you a reason, it's that he's clearly invested a good deal of time studying the issue, so the least you could do is take a look at his videos and critique them. Wouldn't you like to tear holes in his arguments and prove him wrong?

 

[TSR]

Well, if you want me to give you a reason, it's that he's clearly invested a good deal of time studying the issue, so the least you could do is take a look at his videos and critique them.

.
ITYMTS "a good deal of time reading other denier's work so he can mindlessly parrot their crap"

HTH

HAND
.

 

[Budly]

.
Because it's not what you *said*
.

Well, that was what was meant.

.
Well, that removes all doubt...
.

So why don't you find his rules reasonable?

I gave you the link.

But they are not your arguments. What do you have to bring to the table?

.
Which, again, moves the goalposts. You wanted U.V.'s videos rebutted.

They were.

How were they rebutted? Please be specific.

Now, if you want to make arguments of *your* own while you can, then you can have arguments from here.
.

Arguments about what?

 

[Budly]

.
ITYMTS "a good deal of time reading other denier's work so he can mindlessly parrot their crap"

HTH

HAND
.

So how many revisionist texts have you yourself read?

 

[TSR]

Well, that was what was meant.

.
well, then you should consider saying what you mean.
.

So why don't you find his rules reasonable?

.
Because they are completely outside of the MA, and designed to do nothing but up his hit count.

If he, or you, want discussion here, you make your points *here*
.

But they are not your arguments. What do you have to bring to the table?

.
What do *you* have to bring to the table?

You make an argument here, and I will make a counter here.

You point to another site, I point to another site.

See how that works?
.

How were they rebutted? Please be specific.

.
In that their factual errors and fallacies were amply documented.

If you feel that is not the case, please feel free to specify here why, and I will discuss here why you are wrong.
.

Arguments about what?

.
About the Holocaust

Got anything original to say on the topic?

No?

Then back in the drawer with you.
.

 

[TSR]

So how many revisionist texts have you yourself read?

.
Pretty much all of Rudolf, Mattagno, Graf, Leuchter and on and on...

Your turn: what normative historians have *you* read?
.

 

[Horatius]

You mean after all this time you've never watched them?

Well, if you want me to give you a reason, it's that he's clearly invested a good deal of time studying the issue, so the least you could do is take a look at his videos and critique them. Wouldn't you like to tear holes in his arguments and prove him wrong?

Considering the "quality" of the "scholarship" he demonstrated in those few posts wherein he attempted to actually discuss his theories, as opposed to just spamming his videos, I found no reason to presume that his videos would be of any greater import. It would be incumbent upon you to review some few of those previous discussions before you cast thinly-veiled aspersions, don't you think?


Added to the rather comprehensive refutations of those same videos already provided by people like Nick Terry, who has on more than one occasion clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the time period, I see little value in spending any more of my time repeating work already so ably accomplished. That he has spent time assembling these videos is not a compelling argument; many a crazy person has spent considerable time assembling data and arguments to support their particular delusion, would you demand I accord them the same level of attention, just because of the effort expended?

You also presume that it is necessary for me, personally, to "tear holes in his arguments and prove him wrong". Why ever would that be needed? You also presume that I have never torn holes in any of his arguments. I again urge you to review the record. In those cases I chose to engage him, his performance was less than stellar.

 

[Budly]

.
well, then you should consider saying what you mean.
.

Fine.

.
Because they are completely outside of the MA, and designed to do nothing but up his hit count.

Where does it explicitly state (or is implied) in the Membership Agreement that one cannot set the rules for a debate? Here is the link for your reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

If he, or you, want discussion here, you make your points *here*
.

I am making my points here. If am not, then they would not appear on the forum.

.
What do *you* have to bring to the table?

You make an argument here, and I will make a counter here.

I have not been able to find a flaw in any of the arguments he has presented in his videos, so I do not have one to give. However, I would like to see someone here try to refute at least one of the thirty videos. Do you have a refutation of your own to give? If so, I would like to have a look at it.

You point to another site, I point to another site.

Linking to a site is permissible when one needs to substantiate a claim that one has made, but that does not in itself constitute an argument, nor does it substitute for one. If you have not made a claim, then your link is worthless. The second poster in this thread fails to understand this, and perhaps you, as well. What claim is he trying to support with his five links? And what claim are you trying to support by supplying a link to the Holocaust Controversies blog?

.
In that their factual errors and fallacies were amply documented.

If you feel that is not the case, please feel free to specify here why, and I will discuss here why you are wrong.
.

I would like to, but first you have to tell me what these "factual errors and fallacies" were. Please be specific.

.
About the Holocaust

Got anything original to say on the topic?

No?

Then back in the drawer with you.
.

Do you have any proof whatsoever to show that a single Jew was gassed to death by NS Germany? If you do, please present it now. I prefer material evidence (i.e. corpse of a Jew with lungs full of cyanide) or documentary evidence (i.e. autopsy report proving a Jew perished by gassing) to eyewitness testimony as the third is often vague and laced with contradictions, and has the lowest evidentiary value of the three.

 

[Horatius]

Where does it explicitly state (or is implied) in the Membership Agreement that one cannot set the rules for a debate? Here is the link for your reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

....

I would like to, but first you have to tell me what these "factual errors and fallacies" were. Please be specific.

Having linked to the MA, one would hope that you realize cutting and pasting large amounts of text from another source violates at least one of the rules in the MA.

Once again, you must explain to us why it is so important the we, personally, refute the claims made in these videos, rather than link to such refutations made by people far more knowledgeable in the issues than ourselves.

It would also be nice if you could explain why you're so adverse to going to that site, and debating those people, if you're so hot and bothered about finding proof of the Holocaust.

 

[TSR]

Where does it explicitly state (or is implied) in the Membership Agreement that one cannot set the rules for a debate? Here is the link for your reference:

.
Where in the MA does it state that anyone has to abide by rules other than set out therein?
.

I am making my points here. If am not, then they would not appear on the forum.

.
The only point you have made is that no one *here* (not the claim your originally made) has directly addressed points not directly made here.

If you can point "there" for a topic of discussion, then I can point *over there* for a refutation.

Your point is thus addressed.
.

I have not been able to find a flaw in any of the arguments he has presented in his videos, so I do not have one to give. However, I would like to see someone here try to refute at least one of the thirty videos. Do you have a refutation of your own to give? If so, I would like to have a look at it.

.
Then you have not read the site to which I pointed you.

Why do you expect everyone else to refer to a site outside of JREF, but refuse to refer to such a site yourself?
.

Linking to a site is permissible when one needs to substantiate a claim that one has made, but that does not in itself constitute an argument, nor does it substitute for one. If you have not made a claim, then your link is worthless.

.
And you have not made a claim worth addressing, so there is no need to address it here.

You said no one had refuted the Ugly Voice.

You were wrong.
.

The second poster in this thread fails to understand this, and perhaps you, as well. What claim is he trying to support with his five links? And what claim are you trying to support by supplying a link to the Holocaust Controversies blog?

.
That the work has already been done, and since you do not try to make a point other than that work has not, it is sufficient refutation of your point.
.

I would like to, but first you have to tell me what these "factual errors and fallacies" were. Please be specific.

.
You want me to address a site outside of JREF.

I do so by referring you to a site outside of JREF.

If you want discussion here, make a substantive point here.
.

Do you have any proof whatsoever to show that a single Jew was gassed to death by NS Germany? If you do, please present it now. I prefer material evidence (i.e. corpse of a Jew with lungs full of cyanide) or documentary evidence (i.e. autopsy report proving a Jew perished by gassing) to eyewitness testimony as the third is often vague and laced with contradictions, and has the lowest evidentiary value of the three.

.
No one cares what you prefer.

You ask for evidence which you know does not exist.

Will you agree to deal with the evidence which does?
.

 

[Andy_Ross]

.
Where in the MA does it state that anyone has to abide by rules other than set out therein?
.

.
The only point you have made is that no one *here* (not the claim your originally made) has directly addressed points not directly made here.

If you can point "there" for a topic of discussion, then I can point *over there* for a refutation.

Your point is thus addressed.
.

.
Then you have not read the site to which I pointed you.

Why do you expect everyone else to refer to a site outside of JREF, but refuse to refer to such a site yourself?
.

.
And you have not made a claim worth addressing, so there is no need to address it here.

You said no one had refuted the Ugly Voice.

You were wrong.
.

.
That the work has already been done, and since you do not try to make a point other than that work has not, it is sufficient refutation of your point.
.

.
You want me to address a site outside of JREF.

I do so by referring you to a site outside of JREF.

If you want discussion here, make a substantive point here.
.

.
No one cares what you prefer.

You ask for evidence which you know does not exist.

Will you agree to deal with the evidence which does?
.

This is excellent.

 

[Lamafarmer]

Why are you laughing? What do you find to be funny?

His introduction cracked me up.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

On the topic of the holocaust, I've got a quick question - What is the generally agreed upon number of jews killed? I've heard that it's not quite 6 million, but rather somewhere between 5.2 and 5.7, thus "more than 5" would be more appropriate.