Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
running amok and putting missile bases on Pacific islands.
Click to expand...

And that's something we or our allies would never do right, lol.

I think if you did a count to find which country had the most military hardware distributed around the world, and who's army was set up as an invasion force, no one comes close to our number 1 ally, the USA.
 
Value Collector said:
And that's something we or our allies would never do right, lol.

I think if you did a count to find which country had the most military hardware distributed around the world, and who's army was set up as an invasion force, no one comes close to our number 1 ally, the USA.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the USA did not develop a military/industrial complex until it was forced to in order to counteract the threat of Germany and Japan. The Americans were too busy improving their own wealth instead of trying to spread their military around the world. Same with having to counteract the resurgence of the Soviet Union after the war.

Unnecessary militarianism isn't really a winner for democracies, too much taxpayers money being spent on arms when they could be spent on education or science (or pokies and beer) or other handouts to win votes.

It's only to counter the threat of the Godless Communists(;)) that the West spends so much money on arms.
 
SirRumpole said:
The Americans were too busy improving their own wealth instead of trying to spread their military around the world. Same with having to counteract the resurgence of the Soviet Union after the war.

Unnecessary militarianism isn't really a winner for democracies, too much taxpayers money being spent on arms when they could be spent on education or science (or pokies and beer) or other handouts to win votes.

It's only to counter the threat of the Godless Communists(;)) that the West spends so much money on arms.
Click to expand...

You don't know much about American history do you, the Americans had plans for an empire and "expansion at the cost of other people's" as early as 1790.

Not only did they fight a rolling war of genocide expanding across their continent killing hundreds of thousands American Indians, in wars that lasted up until 1898, yes as they were building high rises in New York and the Brooklyn bridge, they were still fighting Indians.

But they also expanded into the pacific taking Hawaii and some Asian and Latin American territories, not to mention a war to expand into areas that had been claimed by the Mexicans.

it is actually no coincidence that the White House and many other capital buildings are inspired by roman architecture, the early leaders saw them selves as building a grand new empire.
 
Value Collector said:
You don't know much about American history do you, the Americans had plans for an empire and "expansion at the cost of other people's" as early as 1790.

Not only did they fight a rolling war of genocide expanding across their continent killing hundreds of thousands American Indians, in wars that lasted up until 1898, yes as they were building high rises in New York and the Brooklyn bridge, they were still fighting Indians.

But they also expanded into the pacific taking Hawaii and some Asian and Latin American territories, not to mention a war to expand into areas that had been claimed by the Mexicans.
Click to expand...

Ancient history, but as far as I recall the takeover of Hawaii (which was not a great demonstration of democracy) was on behalf of a group of American businessmen who owned sugar plantations and who formed some sort of insurgent group and took over the island.

As for the Indians, yes they got thrown out of their land as we threw the aborigine out of theirs, so few people on the planet have nothing to be ashamed of , but it's all history now.

My original point still stands; ie the spread of the US military was in response to external threats, not because of some inner desire to conquer the world.
 
Value Collector said:
You don't know much about American history do you, the Americans had plans for an empire and "expansion at the cost of other people's" as early as 1790.

Not only did they fight a rolling war of genocide expanding across their continent killing hundreds of thousands American Indians, in wars that lasted up until 1898, yes as they were building high rises in New York and the Brooklyn bridge, they were still fighting Indians.

But they also expanded into the pacific taking Hawaii and some Asian and Latin American territories, not to mention a war to expand into areas that had been claimed by the Mexicans.

it is actually no coincidence that the White House and many other capital buildings are inspired by roman architecture, the early leaders saw them selves as building a grand new empire.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Check out the above Wikipedia page for a list of American wars, you will find it is quite massive, even before ww1 America had already been involved in many wars to claim territory.

if that list of wars is not a clear sign of an expansionist regime, I don't know what is.

We had no such systematic wars of gencide against the Australian aboriginals.
 
The yanks are only about money and they love guns. There is money in it too. Arms production one of thier best earners.

But oil and gas is the big one. They undemocratically supported the overthrow of the elected government in the Ukraine who there is little doubt in my mind brought down that airliner. The Dutch are not allowed to publish the findings of the disaster because it is not a result against Russia(Putin, not that I like him). The US desperately want to curtail Russian oil and gas output.

Struth it has even come out in the last 24 hours that there has been a US support of ISIS.

If you look at all the disputs/wars involving the US its all about the oil.

We are heading for very bad times and our alliance with the US bodes ill. IMHO
 
Value Collector said:
Tink, name one piece of doctrine "atheism" has.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion, atheism is nothing more than a simple disbelief if a god, every thing else is some thing else.

any opinion I have about anything else is not atheism, eg My belief in equal rights for gays is not atheism, it's part of my humanism, my belief in a free market is not part of my atheism, it's part of my economic beliefs, the difference is, because I base my beliefs on facts and logic rather than faith, scripture and dogma, I am open to change my mind if evidence shows I am wrong, you however are not.
Click to expand...

VC, you have a level of patience that Job would be envious of......
 
wayneL said:
That's rubbish http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_persecution_of_homosexuals
Click to expand...

Didn't it said on the page that Cuba followed Stalin's belief that homosexuality is a form of Capitalist decadence? So it's more of a Communist ideological persecution than an antheistic one.

But to be fair, I know a few really religious people - attend Church almost daily, volunteers and visit nursing home etc. - and they have nothing against homosexuals or Islam or Muslims either.



Just saw Child 44 - a movie based on some Russian novel set during the 60s in Stalin's USSR. Read that it's based loosely on true events but not sure how true it is but the movie said that Stalin have stated that there is no murder in paradise, that murder is a Capitalist disease etc. etc. So when children are found dead the authority and investigator classify it as some tragic accident, case closed.

Communism follow its own religion - they just replaced the old God with the new one - their Chairman.
 
Value Collector said:
And that's something we or our allies would never do right, lol.

I think if you did a count to find which country had the most military hardware distributed around the world, and who's army was set up as an invasion force, no one comes close to our number 1 ally, the USA.
Click to expand...

The word "ally" gives the impression of an equal partnership; but calling it for what it is would be impolite :D
 
SirRumpole said:
You really have no right to criticise belief in non existent entities if you believe in a free market.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When I said I believe in free markets, I was using the word believe to mean "I support" free markets. Eg when I say I believe in equal rights for gays, I am not actually making a claim that gays currently have equal rights in all cases, just that I believe they should have it, in a perfect world, and I support a move towards achieving that goal.

so it's a different usage of the word believe, than a person that says they believe something exists, as that person is making a positive claim which is either true or false, where as my statement that I believe in free markets is just giving an opinion of how I think something should be handled.
 
Value Collector said:
so it's a different usage of the word believe, than a person that says they believe something exists, as that person is making a positive claim which is either true or false, where as my statement that I believe in free markets is just giving an opinion of how I think something should be handled.
Click to expand...

On one hand you critcise religious people for believing in something you say doesn't exist because you say that those beliefs infringe on the rights of others, on the other hand because of your belief in free markets you say we should open ourselves up to cheap imports and put Australians out of work and drive Australian business to the wall.

It seems to me that people are suffering from your delusional belief in free markets just like people are suffering from delusional religious belief.
 
Value Collector said:
Tink, name one piece of doctrine "atheism" has.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion, atheism is nothing more than a simple disbelief if a god, every thing else is some thing else.
Click to expand...

'Church of the non believers' run by Richard Dawkins, and you are one of his disciples/mouthpieces, putting the boots into Christianity.
Doing all you can to get rid of Religion.

You are just parrotting everything he says.

What did Richard Dawkins say, there is nothing wrong with rape -- I suppose if you don't have a base of right and wrong, you can make your own rules.
There is no value system.

I have already said, they have an Atheist Convention in Melbourne, the Atheist movement.
 
I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.
 
Tink said:
I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.
Click to expand...

If this is the quote you refer to, I see nothing wrong with his statement

Richard DawkinsVerified account
‏@RichardDawkins

Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/494012678432894976
 
I think what he was saying was, if you are raped by someone you know, it is not as bad as by a stranger -- something along those lines.

I haven't taken much notice of him, but I am sure others can verify.
 
Tink said:
I think what he was saying was, if you are raped by someone you know, it is not as bad as by a stranger -- something along those lines.

I haven't taken much notice of him, but I am sure others can verify.
Click to expand...

There are various degrees of all types of crimes is what I think he was saying.
 
Tink said:
I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.
Click to expand...

Actually it didn't happen last year. What did happen is he made a statement regarding several types of sexual demeanours and expressed his absolute abhorrence of all types of sexual abuse. In trying to categorise types of abuse by their severity on the victims he mentioned that he, personally, had been "felt up" as a boy in school by one of the teachers, but he didn't think he had been harmed by it personally. The "liars for Jesus" lobby then took that remark completely out of context and tried to insinuate that Dawkins was excusing rape of school kids. The Christian lobby then pushed that story out through their various media and never contextualised what was said, other than repeat the erroneous claim that "Dawkins condones rape".

If you actually spent a smidgen of time reading Dawkins, you would know that he is one of the few people out there exposing the ill-treatment of women and children in Islamic (and other) societies when your own Catholic Church turns a blind eye to it or at best talks about it in just general terms without specifically identifying the perpetrators. Most other leaders in society, including the so called feminist movement and many on the Left, simply ignore the issue and treat it as OK because it is part of "their" (Islamic) culture
 
Top