Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Dániel Boros

  • Birthday 10/19/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Objectivism, Science, Pc Games, Anime

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Dániel Boros's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. I've looked at the info for the Gas Chamber in Auschwitz and the fact that it is a reconstruction by people who have never seen the original was a bit suprising. It is also a fact that this reconstruction destroyed any and all evidence of the gas chamber ever existing. Also how did people realize that this particular gas chamber was a Soviet reconstruction if the existence of these chambers was not up for debate? The claims of eye witnesses are rearely reliable especially if we are talking about people who had every reason to hold a grudge against the nazis. Corpses rearly lie I however doubt that too many of the dead bodies have been dissected or even counted. I like concrete evidence. Like real concrete with gas in it. I don't see how a historical accident could ever brush aside a single dead body.
  2. The nazis were very antisemitic. They were also German and nationalists. If you wish to kill an ethnic subgroup you don't need to collect them. Look at any genocide (like in Yugoslavia) and you will see that the Nazis were the only people who collected people for the purpose of killing them instead of simply killing them. Now if you want to deport people which is somehting a bunch of nationalists would hapily do than you would have a good reason to collect the people before you deport them. Or alternatively you can imprisone everyone and prevent them from multiplying. You can even castrate them to be sure but even if you do that it would not be true that your goal was to kill them. The way I understand it the high command of the Third Reich did not know about the Night of the Broken Glass and that documents prove this. I also do not think that riots similar to the Fergusson riots are an effective way to kill thousands of people if you have all the power all the military and all of the police backing you. The Night of the Long Knives was done so that Hitler would have no opposition in his own party. Hitler had a logical reason to kill those Nazis whom he did not trust. Did he have a logical reason to kill millions of jews? Look at the places Hitler explicite said he wanted. Only places with lots of Germans. Maybe because he was a nationalist? Look at every other place that he also attacked. Only countries that declared war on him or that were in war with his allies. And the USSR that had more soldiers and tanks on his border than all of Europe combined. People do things for various reasons. To simply say that they were evil and therefore they did evil is not usually a good explanation. They were evil. Yes. They did lots of bad things yes. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to make the look worse than they actually were. The furnaces were there to cremete the dead bodies. People die of old age and disease even if the nazis don't kill people. That is how nature works. It is the most effective way to dispose a corpse and its germs although it is not the cheapest. When you have lots of people in a small camp in the 1940-s you might be concerned about disease. The existence of gas chambers is debatable. Even if they existed only a few camps had them. The sistematic murder and castration of the so called "weak and sick" is not the same as the sistematic murder of jews. One does not follow the other. I do not know what the Madagacar plan was or is. A very bad joke indeed. The way I understand it it is accepted by all Historiens that at least 95% of Zykon-B was used to dissinfect the clothing of the inmates and the buildings they lived in. Historiens and reviosionists disagree in the remaning 5% percent so the fact that the Nazis had lots of stockpiles proves nothing. I do not know why there is no excuse for people like David Irving but here is a video of the late Cristopher Hitchens talking about the subject:
  3. Personally I like to focus on Darvid Irving's historical work rather than his personal life. I don't believe that David Irving is a professional troublemaker. I think he is an amature when it comes to troublemaking. I think after being banned from several western countries and jailed for several months anyone would be a little agitated. People got jailed for simply giving him a forum to speak. I don't believe that is how states should handle peacful troublemakers and I don't think that fall victim to censorhip laws shouldn't complain about them. There's a big difference between saying that the Holocaust never happened and that the death camps were actually for interment without the specific goal to kill people. I believe that David Irving's position on the Holocaust can be summarized as follows: *Much less people died in death camps as it is believed today *There was no intention to kill the people in the camps *No person died by gass *Most people died because of hunger and disease I think there's good reason to doubt that the Holocaust was in fact a plan to kill people. To my knowledge the only evidence for that claim is the eye witness testimony of a selected few survivors. But if someone knows something I would be happy to hear.
  4. Well if you change your mind you can always look up some lectures of David Irving on youtube. Anyone who has any interest in WWII should do that. I am aware that political figures tend to be a mixed bag, but I don't think anyone would argue that they aren't. Sometimes they do good and that's good and sometimes they do bad things and that's bad. We have to aknowledge both and face reality based on the truth that the facts bare out to us. I think that the history people are thought today has so much war time proraganda that it doesn't qualify as history. For example the desparate atempts of the Third Reich to make a peace deal with the British before and after the bombing of London is barely known. This infrormation has been surpassed during the war so that the politicains who wanted peace didn't have a chance to make it happen, but what's the point of not telling the people about it now? Or the fact that Churcill bombed Berlin in order to agaitate Hitler so that he would bomb London. Before the bombing of Berlin Hitler only targeted military structures. The bombing of London was clearly the result of Churcill's handywork so that peace would no longer be an option yet no one knows or writes about it. I am aware of that the winners write history, but shouldn't historians be accaountable (not legally) for the things they write? Why is it that in other fields of science people manage to operate objectiely but not in history?
  5. So I've been looking at the revisionist material on Youtube (David Irving) and I was wondering what you guys thought about it.
  6. What if a tresspasser tries to steal something from my home? Would it be alright to threaten him then?
  7. I went to a disco once and there was one guy who vomited on stage. He was (forcibly) escorted out by the security. Would you say that would be illegal in the U.S. ? Also how can a cop determine if someone is trespassing? I mean if someone actually lives in my house and has a key (for whatever reason) than the cop wouldn't know who really owns the house. Is that when the courts need to decide who should go and who should stay?
  8. I have a few questions: Is it alright to force someone out of a property if they entered unlawfully? Is it alright to force them out if they entered lawfully but refuse to leave when the property owner asks them to do so? (By force I mean threat of force or physical force.) If someone is denied access to his own property by his neighbor what is the proper thing to do for the owner and for the police? Do they need to go to curt or can the police just go in and kick out the person staying there illegally? I'm interested in what is right and also what is currently legal (in the U.S. or elsewhere). Thank you in advance.
  9. I am trying to find out whether the following quote is authentic, and if not where it came from: "A good general not only sees the way to victory, he also knows when victory is impossible." Polybius It was claimed that this quote came from Polybius's Hsitories, but I could not find it in the works that are still available for us: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234 I also have no idea who quoted it first in modern times. Any help is much appreciated. D.
  10. Since no one responded yet I shall quote myself:
  11. Hypothetically if we went back in time we could only go back as far as time had existed int other words as far as change has occurred, therefore even if the Universe does not have a first cause id does have a first state, does it not?
  12. Didn't Rand break up with Branden because Branden had an affair with someone else the same time he had an affair with Rand? Not because of the affair, but because he was lying to her. This might be a rumor though.
  13. Or maybe it will be used as an anti-evolution slogan instead.
  14. I wouldn't assume she was not interested in or did not understand the theory of evolution. No one here would claim that she did not understand of economics just because she didn't like Keynsean economics. I would be surprised if she of all people didn't care about the origins of humankind. She simply didn't like the theory of evolution, but was not ready to say why, because she was simply not yet ready to do so. Perhaps she wanted to ponder on the issue a little more before she confronted others with it. Nobody today knows why she didn't like the theory... well except maybe Peikoff...
  • Create New...