Why is it frowned upon to question the holocaust?

woodoo

Surely any subject should be free to be researched, questioned, queried etc. Perhaps it would copper-fasten the current understanding of the holocaust beyond doubt. Or perhaps it may shed new light on exactly what happened. How many were really killed etc. Why be afraid of the truth.

bacon n eggs

Tsk, what you go and ask that for, tis Friday night man.

Links234

Because people who generally do happen to have extreme right wing politics or are crackpot nutcases, or both

Eramen

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire


Cheers Voltaire, I'll keep it in mind :cool:

Giblet

Because the people who question it usually haven't got past the research part.

woodoo

Links234 wrote: »

Because people who generally do happen to have extreme right wing politics or are crackpot nutcases, or both

Or is that what they end up being labeled to shut them up?

Haelium

Links234 wrote: »

Because people who generally do happen to have extreme right wing politics or are crackpot nutcases, or both

People who question creationism generally happen to have extreme secular politics or are nihilists, or both.

Ad hominems prove nothing. It's an area where misinformation does tend to gather, but that doesn't mean we should have some dogma about revisionism.

Arcsin

Too many groups and individuals that question it have a clear agenda and they are almost all some strain of fascist.

That makes a lot of people defensive and stifles legitimate, objective research. That is not to say genuine research doesn't take place but rather it doesn't get the coverage that some racist spouting nonsense will get.

Mark Tapley

You are free to research the holocaust. Its when despite all the evidence to the contrary you decide it didn't happen , then you are a holocaust denier and a ****wit .

Gorilla Rising

I think you've the right to question anything, but before doing so (especially with something such as the holocaust) you should do some research and prepare proper findings to back up your argument (if in fact you are arguing against the fact it happened).

Clandestine

You can go to prison for questioning the holocaust in several countries.
The fact that a person can go to prison for expressing an opinion is disturbing to say the least.

HansHolzel

You are not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre either.

Clandestine

HansHolzel wrote: »

You are not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre either.

Not comparable. Thats disturbing the peace

Seachmall

Because there is overwhelming evidence that has been gathered not only by government departments but independent researchers.

While that doesn't guarantee the accuracy of that research it should be taken into consideration.

On the other hand the majority of holocaust "skeptics" tend have well known and widely publicised biases and alternative motives. That in itself is enough to throw any skepticism into disrepute by mere association.


Should an expert in the field present research for peer review and demonstrate that the holocaust was grossly exagerated then I would be willing to take that into consideration.


However, at the end of the day I am no expert in the field nor do I particularly care if the holocaust was exaggerated or not so I will, by necessity, rely on the scientific majority to inform me of what is likely and what isn't. I'm not qualified to throw doubt on any evidence presented on it's own merit, although by nature of being a rational human being I am qualified to throw doubt on the evidence presented depending on it's source and their intentions.

smcgiff

And the potato famine didn't happen either.

playadeldick

The Holocaust is the most researched and documented event in history.

Clandestine

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You are free to research the holocaust. Its when despite all the evidence to the contrary you decide it didn't happen , then you are a holocaust denier and a ****wit .

Most "Holocaust deniers" aren't denying that the holocaust occurred, rather they raise suspicions about certain "facts" of the holocaust e.g how many people actually died, were gas cambers used.

Paz-CCFC

HansHolzel wrote: »

You are not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre either.

We're f*cked if there's a fire, in that case.

Links234

Haelium wrote: »

People who question creationism generally happen to have extreme secular politics or are nihilists, or both.

Ad hominems prove nothing. It's an area where misinformation does tend to gather, but that doesn't mean we should have some dogma about revisionism.

it's not exactly an ad hominem to point out that people with certain ideologies have certain biases that are being served by distorting facts and/or making false claims

or to cut the bull****, I don't think I know of many people who deny the holocaust that aren't neo-nazis

asdfg!

What's the difficulty? Hitler was very specific in Mein Kampf. The Jews were the blame for everything. His followers tried to execute his wishes because they agreed with him.

So they tried to eliminate the Jews and the Communists and the mentally ill and the homosexuals and the intellectuals and the gypsies and the Poles and the Slavs and anyone they felt didn't fit with their Aryan fantasy.

The only people afraid of the truth are those who still follow the Nazi line.

So who are you OP?

NuckingFacker

smcgiff wrote: »

And the potato famine didn't happen either.

Ohh, it did, but you don't hear about it every feckin day. I guess the wrong sort of people died in that one - not as media friendly.. If paddies ran the media, the famine would be reknowned. I'd also like to vote for a "Multiple thanks" button for eramens post.

Mickey H

HansHolzel wrote: »

You are not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre either.

But it's fun to do that.

Damn Commies taking away all the fun.

HansHolzel

It's not disturbing the peace. It's inciting a stampede and causing mass deaths.

This serves as a classic example of the need for some restrictions on free speech, as does the concept of a defamation law.

playadeldick

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Ohh, it did, but you don't hear about it every feckin day. I guess the wrong sort of people died in that one - not as media friendly.. If paddies ran the media, the famine would be reknowned.

Ah the conspiracy nuts arrive. We've been expecting you.
Want some ketchup for that chip on your shoulder?

NuckingFacker

playadeldick wrote: »

Ah the conspiracy nuts arrive. We've been expecting you.
Want some ketchup for that chip on your shoulder?

I'm half jewish. Want a cloth for that egg on your face, Dick?

Clandestine

You guys should watch this:

playadeldick

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I'm half jewish. Want a cloth for that egg on your face?

I don't believe you. Are you claiming that the Jews run the world's media? Usual Nazi claptrap.

Norfolk Enchants

Clandestine wrote: »

You can go to prison for questioning the holocaust in several countries.
The fact that a person can go to prison for expressing an opinion is disturbing to say the least.

In Germany especially. The Turkish pm and Turkish politicians have publically denied the Armenian holocaust whilst on German soil. The Turkish have yet to admit that that was genocide, never mind apologise for it. If they said the same about the ww2 holocaust, they would be looking at serious gaol time.

playadeldick

LOL you know it's a conspiracy thread when the nutters start posting Youtube videos as their arguments. Go to bed, you're drunk.

Mark Tapley

Clandestine wrote: »

Most "Holocaust deniers" aren't denying that the holocaust occurred, rather they raise suspicions about certain "facts" of the holocaust e.g how many people actually died, were gas cambers used.

They still sound like ****wits to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Seachmall

Haelium wrote: »

Ad hominems prove nothing.

Ad hominems provide a measurement of reliability when presented with two or more pieces of contradictory evidence.

Dismissing a claim based entirely on the source without regarding the evidence is indeed a fallacy, however factoring in potential bias or lack of expertise into the equation when judging the veracity of evidence is absolutely essential to anyone who considers themselves to be a rational person.