Alright, so a couple of days ago I was talking to a friend of mine in class. And we began to talk about religion. Now I'm far from the kind of person that likes to showcase my views on things, But I told him I was an Atheist. He Actually didn't believe me at first, and said that people have to take a oath to become an atheist. We literally argued about this for 5 whole minutes before I finally said lets go to an computer and get google the definition. after I showed him what atheism actually is, He still retained doubt. I just said forget it, and ended the conversation on it there.
What I'm asking is how long will people remain that ignorant on atheism. It's not like he's dumb when it comes to other topics. He says He's a christian and he never even read the bible. And when I told him and another friend I read it They Laughed. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention one of the guys laughing has a tattoo that says "blessed" on his chest. And he never read the bible. That's just stupid to me, But I kinda want to know what other people think about this.
Tom Sarbeck was kind enough to respond to my question (above) privately, rather than "embarrass me publicly," and while I appreciate his discretion, I don't feel I require the additional protection.
Tom Sarbeck has sent you a message on Think Atheist
Subject: American profit takers being destroyed
archaeopteryx, I'm feeling no need to embarrass you so I'll answer privately.
Your remarks about profit takers have persuaded me that you know little of sociopathy or psychopathy, both of which have recently been renamed to antisocial personality disorder. Do some web searching on those terms. In short, people with those illnesses lack empathy. Those who are not in prisons or mental hospitals can do very well in either business or politics.
What Tom fails to realize is that I have a background in psychology and am quite familiar with both the terms sociopathy and psychopathy, and hardly require the use of Wikipedia to refresh my memory. The one thing that Tom neglected to do, was answer my question.
Tom, you justified the use of the atomic bomb on both the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, vaporizing untold thousands of women, children and the elderly, who took no active part in WWII, yet whose vaporized corpses joined with Earth's atmosphere, where doubtless, everyone on earth likely managed a breath or two of their essences. This, despite the fact that surrender talks were underway and there was no actual need to drop either bomb, except to show the world what our military capabilities were. Tom maintained that this action on our part, was necessary to, "guarantee that those who profit from war will be destroyed."
My question, however - the one that went unanswered - was who will guarentee that American arms manufacturers, who profited greatly in all wars from the Korean "Police Action," the "Conflict" in Viet Nam, and both of our incursions into Iraq, be punished? American arms manufacturers have made a veritable fortune supplying our forces with arms. They have further supplied arms to other conflicts around the world that did not directly involve the US. This group has a huge lobbying camp in Washington, and have even been rumored to have instigated conflicts in various world locations, in order to open a market for their arms.
My question was that if vaporization was a fitting punishment for Japanese arms manufacturers, how are these American arms manufacturers punished?
A Cliff Notes course in basic Psychology is not likely to answer that question, but if I ever need one, I'll know who to ask. And for the next time, Tom - I don't embarrass that easily --
Alright, archaeopteryx, let's do it publicly.
You appear to not know, or you consider it unimportant, that in March of 1945, a one-night firebombing raid on Tokyo burned to death or suffocated thousands more people than the atom bomb instantly vaporized in Hiroshima.
Can you be claiming that death by "vaporization" is more painful than death by burning, by inhaling air so hot that it burns every body tissue it touches, or by suffocation?
Despite a background in psychology, do you think for a moment that your use of guilt will persuade the world's decision makers to destroy their nuclear weapons? They understand human nature better than you.
If you had been thinking clearly, you wouldn't have asked about American arms manufacturers. Until you think more clearly, you will remain stuck in the past. I won't join you there.
RE: "in March of 1945, a one-night firebombing raid on Tokyo burned to death or suffocated thousands more people than the atom bomb instantly vaporized in Hiroshima."
I would have to see substantiated statistics on that claim before I could even consider accepting it, much less respond to it.
But it's good to see that you've elected yourself the judge of thinking clearly.
Bombing of Tokyo (Wikipedia)
"The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded."
"In Hiroshima 140,000 were killed and Nagasaki 80,000. Many later died due to radiation poisoning and injuries sustained from the actual bombing."
"a one-night firebombing raid on Tokyo burned to death or suffocated thousands more people than the atom bomb instantly vaporized in Hiroshima."
I'm not seeing those "thousands."
Thank you. I'd seen earlier estimates of immediate deaths by fire in Tokyo and by immediate vaporization in Hiroshima.
Elected myself? I'll have you know it's an hereditary position.
You're now more concerned with numbers than with being vaporized?
RE: "Elected myself? I'll have you know it's an hereditary position."
RE: "You're now more concerned with numbers than with being vaporized?"
Since those vaporized are beyond my capacity to assist, I'm more concerned with the accuracy of your statements.
I realise you were in the armed forces and during active combat at that, so I couldn't possibly know how it must have felt. That might give rise to a justifiable degree of military patriotism and perhaps American arms manufacturers might fall within that purview.
But putting that aside for one moment, American arms manufacturers have also been making arms and delivering them, with the help of the Government, to non-American buyers, in foreign countries. The UK does it too, albeit to a much lesser extent.
This is simply wrong. This is profiteering from war, in a non-patriotic way, for the sole purpose of monetary gain, and as such is a stain on arms manufacturers from both our countries.
Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.
This is the profit that needs explaining, not the money spent on financing and equipping the military for your own country's activities.
Your link explains it. Saudi Arabia being the largest purchaser. Iran makes them nervous I suppose.
The important question being do we have a right or obligation to sell armament to those who don't necessarily practice our own form of government but do support us regionally? The politics of war and flexing your muscle is expensive and not very appetizing.
What happens when the ally that you arm today, becomes someone else's ally tomorrow? Unfortunately modern arms are likely to outlast transient government's treaties.
@Strega - we already know what happens.
We instigated a war between the Iraqis and the Iranians because we were pissed that Iran booted our buddy, the Shah, and armed the Iraqis, which very arms and military strategies they used against us in both Bushies' Iraqi conflicts.