Maybe the soldiers were trained in some way to be altruistic? I think the need to take action is based on instinct, but the decision as to how to carry out an action is based on our own conscious mind. I agree that human intellect can and does override the prime directive instinct, but I don't think it is sustainable. Beside, instincts are there to protect us and the gene pool, if we go against it, I got a feeling the outcome would not be favorable. So, I don't think human intellect could allow us to rise above our instinct. Everything ties in together and must operate as one.
First this: "I agree that human intellect can and does override the prime directive instinct" Then this: "So, I don't think human intellect could allow us to rise above our instinct." Sorry mate, but you are one confused intellectual...
hmm why didn't you quote the complete paragraph which conveyed my point? The first quote did not show that it was a partial agreement. It was actually just a polite way to convey that I do not completely agree with you.
Now that you mention it, YES. Or are we all supposed to just take your word that the articles are bogus? If you have evidence disproving the articles, spit it out. The articles provide plenty of quotes; all we got from you is a shout of 'LIES!' Show us your evidence.
Thomas fancies himself an individualist, just like most of those monkey-see-monkey-do teabaggers. Ayn Rand feeds into their Walter Mitty fantasies as "self-made individualists." Thomas has spent his entire life in government, there's not a fucking thing self-made about him.
http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/personal.html http://www.alternet.org/books/14581..._leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer/ http://lilacs.posterous.com/truly-this-explains-everything http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/10/19/1928-william-edward-hickman-ayn-rand/ http://www.examiner.com/x-3629-Phil...-real-Conservative-man-William-Edward-Hickman Yes, please point out the lies.
TANSTAAFL. You want me to do the tedious job of pointing out to you why obvious lies are in fact lies, you're first going to have to take the humiliating step of <b>picking option B</b> below. You're asking me to to explain why your articles are full of shit, because: Option A: Yes, I'm fully aware these 'articles' are obvious propaganda pieces that are full of blatant logical fallacies (hey, I'm not stupid), but I'd still like you to point out any lies I may have missed. (And my answer to that would be <b>no</b>, since it would be like trying to 'debunk' the flat earth theory. Why bother to debunk that which is already clearly bunk?) OR Option B: These articles look totally above board to me, and I see no clear reason not to believe every word written therein. To my innocent eyes they look nothing like propaganda hatchet jobs. I have no clue why you'd even say such a thing- I really don't get it, so please explain it to me. If you're willing to look like a gullible bluepill by picking option B, I'll be willing to explain what should already be plain to see.
False dichotomy. Option C: Here's what your serial-killer groupie thought about the people who dared to judge her lust object: "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..." How dare society pass judgment on Rand's handsome lust object just because he kidnapped, tormented, raped, murdered and dismembered a 12-year-old girl (whom Rand doesn't expend so much as a comma on, by the way)? Who are they, "these beings" who surely must have "worse sins and crimes in their own lives" than kidnapping, raping and dismembering little girls? Your serial-killer groupie was a complete nutjob, and you're just embarrassed at having been caught taking advice from a halfwitted sociopath. I "love" the way people who didn't have a fucking thing to do with building a society, a society without which they'd just be meat for wolves, think they can look down on it with disdain and they owe it nothing, not even simple respect as having provided them an opportunity to be their best. The Bolsheviks drove little Alisa out of her fricking mind and she never recovered. May as well take philosophy lessons from Charles Manson as from Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand was just another sicko public guru, had some brainwashed. Just like that 'rich dad poor dad' guy.
Rand was, apparently, guilty of something I saw in a lot of women, back in the days I was as prison guard. On visiting days some of the most gorgeous ladies would come in to visit our biggest assholes (no pun), that is, the inmates who had brains enough to do productive work but chose instead to assault and rob their way through life. These are a minority of inmates, mind you, but they were the ones with prettiest girlfriends by far. There is a whole class of women out there who idolize the deviant. I'm told deathrow inmates get love letters and marriage proposals by the score, from complete strangers. The difference with Rand though was that she also had an authoritarian background, and was a novelist.