Who Is Crazier? YECs or Holocaust Deniers

I'm seriously asking opinion here. I think Holocaust deniers are crazier. A YEC is someone who has been brainwashed since a young age (in most cases) to believe that the bible is a guide to everything, from science to moral behavior.
They look at science and accept anything that isn't contrary to the bible but then twist anything that contradicts the bible, to fit the bible. I'm not talking theistic evolutionists who twist the bible to fit science.
Holocaust denial is a different issue. I believe in most cases, that one dislikes Jews before they become a denier. It is more complicated that just disliking Jews. Deniers, like YECs have web sites they call conspiracy sites (anything that confirms the Holocaust, from actual video, to first hand testimony by both survivors and the actual nazis themselves, and they say things like the testimony at the Nuremberg trial was completely coerced). Meanwhile, they have their own sites which remind me of Fundy science sites, and they use the same techniques as well (partial quotes while ignoring mounds of evidence to the contrary).
I think this is most prevalent from those with Germanic ancestry as a psychological response to the possible humiliation that someone who many Germans historically didn't like (the Jews, and a lot of this had to do with the usual "Jews killed Christ Catholic thingy") wound up getting sympathy after the Germans were humiliated in the war. It has to do with the fact that Germans are a proud people, and the killing of Jews have given them a black eye in that department.
I think a normal response would be not to deny the Holocaust happened, I say that because as an atheist and as an ethnic/cultural Jew I often have the Bolshevik revolution and the deaths caused by atheists and/or atheist Jews thrown in my face.
My response is to disassociate myself from the people who committed the heinous crime against humanity realizing that Communism is an ideology (nothing to do with being an atheist or a Jew) and power corrupts.
But the last thing I'm going to do is say it didn't happen or try to rewrite the intentions of the people involved or question the amount of dead innocents.
I don't hold a grudge against the German people at all . I do hold a grudge against the deniers, but I think they have to be insane to go to the extent they do.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I just joined a forum called The Liberty Forum (which is supposed to be a Libertarian forum HA), and I was attacked from every direction by Jew haters. From the Protocol bs to my support for Israel (ok I've been attacked here too on that one) to Jooooish control of the world to blatant Holocaust denial.
My introduction thread took on a life of its own. What I found really weird is that hardly anyone actually came to say the Holocaust is fact.
Here is a link to the Liberty Forum thread for anyone interested:
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...=5&o=21&part=1

[Eva]

who is crazier? Flat-Earthers or Armstrong-Walking-on-the-Moon Deniers?

I think flat earthers are. But it is an interesting comparison to my question. Flat earthers represent bible brainwashed people who are denying just about every aspect of science to make their bible correct, while moon lander deniers are rejecting a historical event.
But moon lander deniers are also denying science (many think we didn't have the capabilities to get to the moon) and many just think it was all part of a conspiracy theory. But the motive is the important thing when it comes to why they are denying...this is what makes one more insane than the other. So I guess it depends on the moon landing deniers motives for denying.

[VladTheImpaler]

Then what about 'Armstrong-Walking-on-the-Moon Deniers' versus Holocaust deniers?

Again, it depends on what is motivating them to deny. Holocaust deniers are usually motivated by a mix of irrational hatred and cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure what motivates a moon walk denier.

Why is it a jailable offense to deny the holocaust if it's true? If it's true it should stand up to questioning. If you feel up to it... http://www.codoh.com/index.shtml

Noprayersneeded wrote

Why is it a jailable offense to deny the holocaust if it's true? If it's true it should stand up to questioning. If you feel up to it... http://www.codoh.com/index.shtml

I don't believe it should be a jailable offense. I used to think it should before I realized the importance of free speech.
It is an emotional law more than anything else.
In Germany, they are very hard on deniers, it is part shame and guilt (emotions) for being a country that was involved in such a heinous act, and one rational reason: to try to keep it from happening again (but I think that is just an excuse for the emotional reasons).
There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech (speech that incites genocide and death), but then again there are laws against making public threats in most Western countries.

[VladTheImpaler]

I have not researched this topic much at all; however the little I've read from some "Holocaust deniers" is that they don't actually deny that concentration camps existed and that a lot of people died as a result of these camps, but more that the purpose of these camps have been twisted and altered by western propaganda. That they were not necessarily designed as death camps to exterminate Jews (but more as labour camps). Their claim is that the holocaust events have been greatly exaggerated by western propaganda. One argument was that there was no evidence of the “death showers” where the Germans used gas to kill people by the hundreds. There was no evidence that such gas had ever been used for such a purpose in these concentration camps.

Now on the outset, without being properly informed, such as my self, you can’t say that this view is entirely crazy and outrageous. After all the victorious are the ones whom write history. Propaganda has always been and is today a very useful tool to sway public opinion. So who knows, maybe reports of what occurred in these concentration camps have been greatly exaggerated.

My point is not that I agree with this claim, it’s just that you can’t just outright dismiss it without doing the necessary research. In the same way I would say that an individual having this view point is not necessarily crazy. Misinformed, or perhaps even wilfully ignorant, sure, but not crazy.

[VladTheImpaler]

I would also like to comment on the moon landing conspiracy theories. A few years back I was actually very intrigued by these conspiracy theories and I research the various arguments and theories.

The one thing that caught my eye and actually made me seriously evaluate whether or not these theories held water was the fact that the motive was there. If in fact the USA was nowhere near having the capability to land on the moon and get back safely, seeing how much political emphasis was put on this enterprise, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the USA would want to fake this event instead of being beaten by the Russians. The event would serve as propaganda to emphasis American dominance and American prosperity.

This is the reason why, before researching the topic, I did not believe one way or the other, despite that I knew that the common accepted view was that the USA in fact did land on the moon. I tried to remain objective and researched the topic.

I have since reached the conclusion that the USA did in fact land on the moon. As of today I have not read an argument which favours a conspiracy which has not been debunked using science and reason. The evidence that the USA actually landed on the moon is simply overwhelming.

This does not mean that you should believe what is commonly accepted without researching the topic your self, however.

Vlad, it is their motivation that leads most deniers or revisionists to make these points.
Hess admitted to gas chambers, but deniers will dismiss his admission. That is just one instance.
And yes, there are many deniers out there who claim that no Jews were murdered, and many who claimed very few (hundreds or thousands).
But the motivation again is the question because why are revisionists throwing out all the evidence as one large conspiracy, yet dwelling on a few issues, as creationists do when it comes to things like "the missing link"

They reject all the answers to their questions as creationist reject the answers regarding evolution.

Here is a site they dismiss completely:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar00.html

And of course, since the Joooos run the media, this piece shown earlier this year on 60 minutes can't be trusted at all:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2267927.shtml

About the 60 minutes story, it was on the Nazi archives that were recently opened up to the public. 5 million documents done by the Nazis, which include the details of the deaths of 17 million people.
That is a lot of Zionist forgery, of course

VladTheImpaler wrote

I would also like to comment on the moon landing conspiracy theories. A few years back I was actually very intrigued by these conspiracy theories and I research the various arguments and theories.

The one thing that caught my eye and actually made me seriously evaluate whether or not these theories held water was the fact that the motive was there. If in fact the USA was nowhere near having the capability to land on the moon and get back safely, seeing how much political emphasis was put on this enterprise, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the USA would want to fake this event instead of being beaten by the Russians. The event would serve as propaganda to emphasis American dominance and American prosperity.

This is the reason why, before researching the topic, I did not believe one way or the other, despite that I knew that the common accepted view was that the USA in fact did land on the moon. I tried to remain objective and researched the topic.

I have since reached the conclusion that the USA did in fact land on the moon. As of today I have not read an argument which favours a conspiracy which has not been debunked using science and reason. The evidence that the USA actually landed on the moon is simply overwhelming.

This does not mean that you should believe what is commonly accepted without researching the topic your self, however.

Good points. But the real point here is that what if you did the same research and concluded that the moon landing was fake? I haven't researched it, but knowing what you read and saw in your quest for the truth, would you not have to be a little off the deep end to still conclude that the landing was fake?
See, the Holocaust deniers claim to do the research too but they deny anything that confirms the reality of the event, much like the YECs like Kent Hovind who has mounds of research that evolution is bunk.

[nkb]

I've never really thought about this, but it occurred to me just now: What would be the purpose for the Allied Forces to make up (or embellish) the Holocaust, especially 60 years later?

[nkb]

VladTheImpaler wrote

The one thing that caught my eye and actually made me seriously evaluate whether or not these theories held water was the fact that the motive was there. If in fact the USA was nowhere near having the capability to land on the moon and get back safely, seeing how much political emphasis was put on this enterprise, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the USA would want to fake this event instead of being beaten by the Russians. The event would serve as propaganda to emphasis American dominance and American prosperity.

And that is where the "theory" falls apart.

If the point of lying about landing on the moon was to gain an advantage against the evil Commies, don't you think they would have been first in line to provide irrefutable evidence that it was faked?
How come the only people to doubt the moon landing are here?

nkb wrote

I've never really thought about this, but it occurred to me just now: What would be the purpose for the Allied Forces to make up (or embellish) the Holocaust, especially 60 years later?

Another good question would be after winning the war, why would the Allies buy into a story that wasn't true about massive Jewish deaths? Did they love Jews so blindly that they took the would start a huge conspiracy to fast track Israel and then have the Nuremberg trial where quite a few Nazis admitted and reinforced what the Allies were "led to believe" about the Jewish deaths...and of course, the they made the Nazis tell lies during the trial because the world loved Jews so much

[Eva]

soooo, if the 60 minutes story says that 17 million jews were killed by the nazis, and i have always believed that the number was closer to 6 million jews, am i a holocaust denier?