Harrison Danneskold

Yeah; lavey himself was pure slime. But watch what you say about satanists in general; some of them are searching for Rand but haven't found the words to articulate it, yet.

And the assertion that satanism advocates the sacrifice of others to oneself is false; read what lavey had to say about harming the innocent before you pass judgment on all of that "lion" rhetoric.

Yeah, um, I think the description of "satanism as blind Objectivism" is completely accurate. There are many big differences, to be sure; mainly the primacy of consciousness (and however many times they call themselves atheists, levayans believe in magick). But satanism considers faith and humility profoundly evil- which is a prerequisite for ever properly grasping Oism. And in my experience satanists are motivated by profound hatred for- guess what? Evasion and self sacrifice. There's some highly superficial pettiness in this thread. Satanists are different from Oists (and wrong) because they believe in magick, just like, hmm. . . Every single altruistic religion in the entire world?

The MN taxpayer rapers. Mascot: Mark Dayton.

J: Because I'm not primarily referring to "productive effort"; I see it as good but not nearly as important as cognitive effort. If you'd prefer a different term I'd be happy to oblige. And taxpayer rapers is out; what would the mascot be? What would it do???

The Minnesota Vikings should keep their name, btw; it suits the new stadium. All I want is for a cigarette to go onto the logo.

J: I'm deliberately using "survival" to refer to continued metabolic function and "life" to refer to doing so as "man qua man" because I'm not entirely comfortable assigning a purpose to a whole species. And by vegetable I meant a braindead person; please excuse the ambiguity.

I think not, Daunce. As someone who sneered at traditional stereotypes, I think she'd be shocked and appalled by what some of her admirers are saying.

Hell; I wonder how that belief impacts suicide bombers!

J: I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. There's a very perverse sort of irony in those who defend Rand regardless of reason. I hesitate to generalize there, though, because I've only dealt with a handful of outright evaders on O.O and numerous sincere and rational people. On Christians: I wonder how belief in the afterlife influenced the children's crusade?

A vegetable is not alive; a curious and rational person is. Is a concrete-bound stoner more like the former or the latter? Nothing against stoners, in general, but some of them (who eat, sleep and breathe apathy) are perfect examples of this. --- The survival argument for being rational doesn't strictly apply to every single individual and this is where some Oists, unfortunately, are prone to twist the facts to fit theory. But consciousness must be conscious of something; the alternative is mindlesness. And anyone who intentionally spends their lives that way isn't alive and is, frankly, not human. Moralist was saying this but, in the thread he began on O.O, also ventured to say that certain thoughts are masculine or feminine. To which I say: why not take that premise further? Why not consider certain thoughts intrinsically rich, white or blonde?

A man who retires to golf his days away could survive on previous earnings quite nicely, without having to think. But to survive permanently "zoned out", on autopilot, is not living.

What hat trick? Since existence, for a conscious being, is experienced as a conscious process, to truly live (qua man) is to think. Life qua man is simply awareness. And this SHOULD exclude anyone who doesn't care to think; in what sense are they human aside from opposable thumbs?

Rearden had taught himself to assume unearned guilt. So long as he gave the parasites his silent sanction and accepted their guilt, he couldn't realize the nature or cause of his burdens. Dagny thought that she could single handedly save her railroad and took some time to realize why she shouldn't. Both flaws stemmed from their egos distorting their cognition.

What's scary is that putin was voluntarily elected (not to mention Obama). And I don't think he's just a general pushover; Obama seems perfectly capable of taking a stand against freedom, selfishness ("greed") and prosperity (keystone). He only becomes spineless when dealing with miserable people.