Page 1 of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#30911 - 10/28/09 05:44 PM Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
A quick introduction as this is my first post on here. I did not feel the need to post in the new member section because really, I've been a Satanist for almost a year, have known this forum for longer and have studied the LHP for quite a few years, I just didn't make an account until recently and did not feel the need to waste anybody's time with a useless thread about how I'm "new" to this. On to my real post:

After re-reading The Satanic Bible and The essay on the nature of government found in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, I have come across a dilemma regarding military service which I cannot seem to solve on my own. I state that this is a dilemma both in Satanism and Objectivism since Ayn Rand was obviously a large influence on LaVey and both his Satanic philosophy and Objectivist philosophy share the same basic principle of self-preservation and morality being based on the achievment of one's goals. The dilemma I find stems from this principle of self-preservation (which I completely agree with as I consider myself both an Objectivist and Satanist) and the rejection of altruism (which I again agree with). Now for the dilemma:

As Ayn Rand clearly states, the only role the government should play is to protect the rights of the minority, being the
individual. She proposes this be done in three ways, a) the protection of individuals from criminals through the police
force,b) the protection of individuals from outsiders who wish to violate the individuals' rights through the military force,and c) through the use of law courts to settle disputes objectively. I'll be leaving the police out of this problem,
although I think this applies to that as well and I will leave out the law courts because they have nothing to do with this. Now, I have to agree that the military is a necessary force because without it, we fall victim to any government with a military who wishes to victimize and violate the rights of anyone who isn't protected and if left to fend for ourselves as individuals against a large military force, we would most probably fail based on sheer manpower alone. Here comes the problem of the need for military and at the same time self-preservation and the rejection of altruistic behaviour. While I respect what the military does for us greatly, I still can't help but feel that since these people risk their lives to protect our rights as individuals, this seems to me that it is, in essence, an altruistic behaviour. Why would one choose to protect their country and individuals that they do not know over protecting themselves by not being part of such an organization? Really, this does not seem to be a Satanic choice in that it puts one in harms way and goes against self-preservation, the highest law. From an Objectivist stand-point, this seems to go against working towards your own goals and holding your life as the most valuable thing one has. So the dilemma I see is: do Satanism and Objectivism require the existence of altruistic persons for protection of their rights?

I do not in any way intend to offend anybody as I already stated that I have much respect for the military, I am simply looking for opinions to see if I misunderstood anything or if I'm just looking at it in the wrong way.

I would appreciate input from everyone but look forward to a reply from Fist if he sees this for the obvious reason.

Thank you in advance.

Top
#30914 - 10/28/09 08:29 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
I guess the best way to explain how being in the military doesn't promote a dilemma or whatever would be to explain why I am in the military, specifically the Navy.

First: I actually do like my country. In the U.S., we have quite a bit of freedom that other countries don't enjoy. I guess...in a crude manner, it's my way of saying "thanks" to the country that gave me what it does (or rather, allows me to be what I want to be). That's a pretty abstract way of thinking, and definitely not the totality of why I volunteered, but it does have a place in my reasoning.

Second: I get quite a bit of money for doing what I do. It's not some grotesquely large amount, but it is enough for me to live quite comfortably and (with the addition of re-enlistment bonuses) to get pretty much whatever I want. In the early days, I had to watch what I spent, because money went quick, but now that I'm a higher rank and don't have a wife or kid, I make more than enough to support myself and give into a lot of whims.

Third: In addition to the pay, there's other advantages. Medical and dental, as crappy as they are, are free for me (perhaps that's why they're so crappy). I don't do much with medical so there's not much comparison (Other than free motrin, free immunizations, free checkups, and if something really bad happens...free vicadin), but I have quite a bit of experience with the dental portion of it. Think of all the expenses you've had to pay for checkups, cleanings, fillings, root canals, implants. I get all that for free. The problem with that is that the waiting list is probably a bit longer and the quality isn't the same as a private corporation, but for the most part I've been willing to sacrifice a bit of quality for expense.

Also, there's the college. I'm not just talking about the G.I. Bill, which is impressive enough as it is. (especially the new post-9/11 G.I. Bill). I haven't stepped foot inside of a college, but I already have quite a bit of college credits that I received for going to the Navy's technical schools. The Navy bends over backwards to get you as much college credits as you can, and then they offer free or reduced price courses you can take through various colleges.

Fourth: To use a cliche, I wanted to see the world. And I have. I've been all over Europe, seen as much of the middle east as I ever want to, and got to go out at midnight in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and look at the stars. People just don't realize how fucking many stars there are...for that experience alone I would trade a month of menial duties (...which, come to think of it, I kinda did...)

I also happen to like the job I do, which was troubleshooting and strike warfare (re: Tomahawk) wargames while I was stationed out to sea, and now that I'm on shore duty, I'm an instructor.

I could list more benefits and such, but I think it's pretty evident that you can quite easily be a selfish egocentric bastard and still be in the military. If you like it, you can make it a career and go far. For other shades of like and dislike, you can just treat it like any other job.

Granted, it is a bit more strict than working at McDonald's. But how many McDonald's employees do you know can say that they visited 24 ports in Europe in a six month period with no travel cost just to do their job?

As well, since you've read at least a bit of Ayn Rand, I'd direct you to "Philosphy: Who Needs It", in the first chapter.
It's addressed to a graduating class of cadets at West Point.

 Quote:

You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service -- it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30915 - 10/28/09 08:48 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
Ankhhape Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 07/28/09
Posts: 99
CJB,

Thanks to You. I have nothing but respect for our servicemen, my oldest brother being a Vietnam vet, our Father a Korean War vet. Just wanted to shout out to you.

I would like to hear Dr. Aquino's comment on this if possible.

A


Edited by Ankhhape (10/28/09 08:50 PM)

Top
#30916 - 10/28/09 08:58 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: Ankhhape]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
CJB:

Well said.

I spent 20 years in the military and not once did I consider it "altruistic." I got as much out of it as I ever put in, in travel, benefits, training, and experiences that have lasted me a lifetime... not to mention malaria, bad knees, bad hips and a few othe negatives.

It wasn't altruistic for me. It was a career choice that allowed me to "give back" something for a country that I also like very much, and even moreso after having seen a hell of a lot of the rest of the world.

Editing: The term that seemed to just pop into my ming was "benignly mercenary," as I enlisted during Vietnam when it was far from a popular choice. But then, after my enlistment was up, I reenlisted and stayed in and enjoyed the benefits that increased with rank.



Top
#30919 - 10/28/09 10:02 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
 Quote:


In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.


Sounds like a justification of terrorism to me. So perhaps it should be quoted to half-baked ARI Zionists.

In fact, in order to be logically consistent, one would have to assume that Rosenbaum would be a staunch advocate of American isolationism and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that the US should interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan, take out Saddam Hussein or materially support Israel's right to exist.

.

.

Top
#30922 - 10/28/09 11:07 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
Ankhhape Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 07/28/09
Posts: 99
 Originally Posted By: School Bully
 Quote:


In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.


Sounds like a justification of terrorism to me.
Isn't there a difference between offense & defense?

Top
#30923 - 10/28/09 11:42 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: Ankhhape]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
To CJB and Jake:

Thanks for the input, I was unaware that both of you serve(d) in the military so the two of you are exactly the people I wanted to hear from. And I'm glad I did because I knew I was missing something with this. As I said in my first post, I have nothing against the military and the reason I actually started thinking about this problem is because I one day want to join the military, regardless of whether or not I could find the connection to that and Satanism. I was just curious as to whether or not one could be made because I was personally unable to make it and now I see that there is one.

In response to CJB's points specifically:
1. With this point, I should add that I am actually Canadian (I recently moved to Peru) so I am well aware of the freedoms given by our two countries, especially now that I live away from there. This is also one of my reasons why I wish to join the military in the future, I just still don't see it as much of an objective one but still a good one.

2. Money was always the one way I thought of justifying it as an Objectivist decision with the idea that Rand gives of in a society based on free trade, there are positions that are needed to be filled and people that are willing to fill said positions for a bargained price meaning one is willing to pay an amount for the service and another is willing to provide the service for that amount. My only problem with this is the question, "is the money worth risking your life which should be more important as a Satanist and Objectivist?" However, I can agree that money is necessary to live both types of lives and I guess one doesn't join the military expecting to be a sacrifice but rather to protect the country, it's people, and be an honoured survivor.

3. I hadn't really considered this because as a Canadian, I already get (or got) government sponsored health care (except for unnecessary dental) but I can see how this benefits one as well. College is also much cheaper compared to those in the U.S. and the government gives a lot of loans and help so I again hadn't considered this in my ideas.

4. Simply, I have to agree that this sounds quite nice.

As far as Philosophy: Who Needs It, I have yet to read that but I can say I agree with that quote and had not looked at it that way. Thanks for that redirect, I'll be sure to read that soon and your whole response was great and appreciated.

To School Bully:
This is definitely not terrorism if done in a defensive manner. Rand states that the only time one has the right to use physical violence is in protection and retaliation against those who initiate it first. This is exactly what the military does and it is justifiable that the military has such a right because at least in Canada and the U.S. this right is also given to the individual.

Top
#30924 - 10/28/09 11:49 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: School Bully
 Quote:


In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.


Sounds like a justification of terrorism to me. So perhaps it should be quoted to half-baked ARI Zionists.

In fact, in order to be logically consistent, one would have to assume that Rosenbaum would be a staunch advocate of American isolationism and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that the US should interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan, take out Saddam Hussein or materially support Israel's right to exist.
.


To be a terrorist can mean different things at different times. Some of the revolutionaries could be considered terrorists. During the Civil War, the Yankees burned down quite a bit of civilian property in the South the hasten the end of the war. The U.S. bombed two populated areas with nukes in WWII (granted the targets were military, but the collateral damage was quite high for civilians). These are all actions that, based on some definitions of terrorism (you know, strike terror into the hearts of your enemies to make them accede to your demands, possibly throwing in "with disregard to who gets hurt"), would be terrorist attacks. Unlike my present leadership, I do not discount terrorism as a tactic. The "Global War on Terror" is bullshit, in other words.
Again, to paraphrase one of those crazy Randroids, we shouldn't be fighting a war on terrorism, on a tactic. That's stupid. We should be fighting a war on, well, the bastards using the tactic. Whether you use the terms "Islamic Fundamentalist," "Jihadist," "Islamic Totalitarian," or just "Motherfucking Bastards that Need to Die," the people that should be dying shouldn't be killed because they're terrorists. They should be killed because, well, they're assholes who killed completely innocent people with no provocation, and they're prepared to do it again and again.

Should I admire them for their determination? Not when their determination is based on the false promise of an incredibly retarded religion (and I truly hope that I have no need to be politically correct here at all). They've based their decisions on an outdated religion that tells them that females are property, genies grant wishes, and if they blow themselves up to take out some people that never did anything to them because someone said it was a holy war, they'd go to paradise and get to fuck seventy virgins.

They've refused to evolve, and when they see how the rest of the world has evolved ahead of them, they call it evil. If these pricks had stayed in their sand castles and never came out except to attack each other based on who should have been declared the Super-High Prophet Guy a millenia ago, I would have no problem with them. When they come out and attack people that would have just left them the hell alone, than I have a problem with it. When they came close to killing a good friend of mine, I had a problem with it.

I have no problem with every Muslim. Hell, I've known a couple that were very decent people who thought the terrorist attacks were terrible. Only the Muslims who have already decided to be slaves to their ideology...yeah, they can all die.

Is willingness to do anything to not be a slave, including terrorism, a virtue? I think so. I would say outright terrorism would be a last resort (think "V for Vendetta"), but I would cross out no tactic that guaranteed my freedom and the freedom of those I cherish.

Willingness to attack people innocent of any imagined crime against you because you are a slave to ideals that aren't even yours is not virtue. It's not even ignorance. It's stupidity. And, if I dare say so, it's evil.

Furthermore...the rulers of Afghanistan (the Taliban, at the time) attacked us, therefore we were completely in our rights to attack them. Iraq? I would've let them settle their own mess, but I don't think it's unethical to try to kill a murderous dictator. I do think it's stupid to try to impose a system antithetical to the people that live there, though. Let them figure their own problems out, just with the warning that if the next ruling class tries to attack us, we'll blow them up. Again.

In defense of Israel, it is the freest (and most secular) country in that entire region. An individual wishing to support them would be well within their rights. I don't think the U.S. should support them like we do, but hey, I don't make foreign policy, either.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30925 - 10/29/09 12:17 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Canada has a military?
(Just kidding...one of my favorite ports was Halifax, Nova Scotia, where once we went onboard a Canadian ship and chilled out with their crew. Those bastards get alcohol on their ships...)

Also, if you're not willing to risk your life for your country and some cash, then don't join the military. I do like my job, but I am by no means a recruiter (for either my military, or any other military). It takes a certain kind of person to be able to unaltruistically be in the military, especially in the army, and it is by no means a bad reflection on you (or anyone else) if you don't want to join the military because you don't want to take that risk. I joined the Navy partially because I didn't want to be on the front lines. Physically, I'm rather weak (especially compared to your average Marine), and I'd really rather not deal with all the rest that comes from being on the front lines.
Some people love it! They love the squad tactics, the brotherhood, the feel of a rifle as it projects a bullet into someone's skull at fifty yards. It's just not for me, and it may not be for you.
I don't mind the rigid atmosphere inherent in the military. While my specific job requires me to think, when I'm not doing that specific job, it doesn't require a lot of thinking. There's ways around that (quite against my will, I've become rather good at sudoku, thanks to long watches in the middle of the night, among other things), but the not being required to critically think all the time doesn't bother me either. The trade-off there is in my favor. I also had to clean a passagesway for twice a day for thirty minutes a piece. And there are so many boring and stupid qualifications you have to go through. And I had to go through various drills that taxed energy, time, patience, willpower...

The military is by no means a dream job. There are downsides to it, like there are to about anything. But, if you don't mind it, or think the trade is an acceptable one, than it is a nice job.

I don't know if the Canadian military has shorter waiting lists than the Canadian civilian health care system, but that might be another benefit there. If you're interested in that, you could ask a servicemember from your country about other benefist.
As a bit of advice, I wouldn't ask a recruiter that. If they're anything like our recruiters, they wouldn't be averse to stretching the truth a bit (though they may shy from an outright lie).

Speaking of benignly mercenary...
 Originally Posted By: Milton Friedman

"In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' I replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, 'If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries."
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30926 - 10/29/09 12:28 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: FriendlyS


Rand states that the only time one has the right to use physical violence is in protection and retaliation against those who initiate it first.



Timothy James McVeigh

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco). From the formation of such units as the FBI's Hostage Rescue and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the 80s, culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."

Timothy McVeigh hated the American administration more than Osama Bin Laden. But McVeigh was not going to make excuses. Instead, he quoted the Supreme Court, that the US government is a mighty and energetic mentor "for better or worse, it is teaching the entire nation with its example". So McVeigh in bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, was just copying the actions of the US government towards its fellow citizens.


.

Top
#30928 - 10/29/09 01:49 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Like I said, I am willing to fight for my country, the freedoms, and the money doesn't hurt, I just wasn't able to rationalize it into a Satanic view. It's just been something I've always wanted to do, but found altruistic. Now having said (or rather typed) out my ideas, bounced them off others, and gotten input from those who are more informed about this topic, I can see I was wrong, or more correctly, confused. An idea that also just occurred to me after typing this reply is, if I've always wanted to be in the military and I've always been a Satanist, there must have logically been something more to the altruistic view I always held so I am quite glad that I took the time to start this thread.

A quick note to School Bully: Although I began this thread more to discuss the reasons a Satanist would have to join the military, not to justify the use of physical force by the military or anyone, I will still take the time to read the full article you posted when I am not so tired and will get back to you because well, a good discussion is a good discussion and I will not pass even though it isn't the one I intended to have.

Thanks again for the input.

Top
#30930 - 10/29/09 02:20 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Friendly- Exactly. If it's something you want to do for your own sake, than it's not exactly altruistic. Sure, the results may be altruistic, from a point of view, but...well, if I really liked cooking soup, and spent time at the homeless shelter just so I could cook more soup, then so what? The only person whose opinion ultimately matters to you is your own...even if everybody here were rabidly anti-military and said that joining the military was altrustic (or unsatanic, or really just about anything you may see as negative) but you really had a desire to be in the military...than you should go for it.

Bully - Not going to get too much deeper into an argument here, mostly because that'd be hijacking the thread a bit...but another point of Objectivism is being rational. It only really works if applied by rational individuals. If you go about rationalizing any slight against you as an excuse to blow up a building, well...you're gonna probably end up blowing up a building.
Just from the fact that he would say that his only viable option was to blow up a random building that ended up having no effect on anything really, except maybe the opposite of what he wanted...well, that should show you how rational he really was.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can use a quote like that for a reason or a rationalization. If you're really looking for a rationalization, than it doesn't matter really what the intent or message of the quote really was.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30935 - 10/29/09 07:27 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne


CJB:-

McVeigh's rationale or whether McVeigh chose the correct course of action is beside the point. Whether it was courage or stupidity that drove him depends on your point of view. What does not depend on your point of view is that McVeigh chose his actions because personally he was unwilling to live as the conquered slave of a domestic enemy. Thus, according to Rosenbaum's morality, this makes McVeigh enormously virtuous.

.
_________________________
.


Top
#30984 - 10/30/09 12:46 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: School Bully


CJB:-

McVeigh's rationale or whether McVeigh chose the correct course of action is beside the point. Whether it was courage or stupidity that drove him depends on your point of view. What does not depend on your point of view is that McVeigh chose his actions because personally he was unwilling to live as the conquered slave of a domestic enemy. Thus, according to Rosenbaum's morality, this makes McVeigh enormously virtuous.


There's a difference between behaving rationally and rationalizing (not to mention just being stupid). But, let us for the sake of argument say that Timmy wasn't a gullible, off-his-rocker, stupid twit, and not only did he believe his freedom was under attack, but it actually was.
If that were the case, we could also go a little bit further and say he did seek redress, and was denied it. He did try official channels, and found them useless. We will go so far as to say he led a massive nationwide campaign to rid the country of whatever it was that bugged him (maybe like Alex Jones, maybe like someone who actually didn't believe every stupid conspiracy theory out there).
After all that, would it have been justified? In this imaginary world where the people in that building were actually maliciously taking away his freedom and refused to even listen to his concerns, than yeah. He would have been virtuous.

However, you can't take one small snippet of a larger philosophy (and not even one of the philosophy's axioms), whether you agree with the philosophy or not, and take that out of context with the rest of the philosophy.

(Warning, Star Wars comparisons ahead!)

About the only time you can really do that in a philosophy is if it's an axiomatic statement of the philosophy. If you don't agree with the philosopher Yoda because you don't believe in a dualistic nature of the force, that's one thing. Or if you can take that axiom and show how Yoda screwed up later on down the line, that's a good thing to do. However, if you see Yoda's belief in a different part of his philosophy like, say, that truth is subjective, than you can't just say "Well, that gives me a right to lie whenever I want to according to Yoda!" because that's inconsistent with the overall philosophy of the Jedi as a whole.

I don't agree with everything Objectivism has to offer. Otherwise, I'd be an Objectivist and not a Satanist. I do however, think that quite a bit of it is true and relevant, and so I quoted Rand to that effect.

I don't agree with Thomas Aquinas about quite a bit, but I still feel that it doesn't violate either his philosophy or mine by quoting him when he says "By nature, all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments." Now, even though I don't agree with his metaphysics, I wouldn't use this quote to rationalize something that goes against the rest of Aquinas's philosophy and say that Aquinas told me I could do it.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30999 - 10/30/09 08:07 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
To make a stubborn mule go forwards you gotta push it backwards. To defy authority is to express individualism, to have an identity and mind separate from the ruling power. So I'm sure Mother Alissa would argue that McVeigh was guilty of collectivist action. The devil is sent to test us. God sent me. Guilt is always interesting. It is something to be created. Ask any fatty who is desperately trying to diet what they feel after eating that donut. Just ask any teenage girl why she sticks her fingers down her throat after dinner. FriendlyS is feeling guilty about being a well-paid slave. He is looking for a loophole to assuage his conscience. Just because FriendlyS is an Objectivist Satanist means diddly to his C.O. Being in the military is about following orders. Would that bother anyone not an Objectivist Satanist? It is said that those who have no feelings of guilt are always guilty of wrong-doing. Does a randroid feel guilty if he gives to charity or helps a little old lady to cross the street? Maybe he can feel such shame he vows to make amends. Maybe this is the place where McVeigh found his motivation.


.


Top
Page 1 of 4 1234>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.