War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

It's heartbreaking how it writhes in agony.

"Uh oh! This video no longer exists!"

that means it's *DEAD!! bless its soul, may it rest in piece

try looking for a new embed here

I've seen this movie several times, and for me this scene has gone from very bizarre to very heartbreaking. I feel like he's euthanizing a good friend who unfortunately has lost his mind. Dave really has no choice at this point, mind you. Still, the machine made me sad. HAL is almost like a tragic hero, in the classical sense. Obviously smart, efficient, and dedicated. Dedicated to a fault, that is. A tragic flaw, if you will.

Where's my drink? *a tear*

provide Free, universal, government-sponsored healthcare for EVERYONE, stop paying insurances, and STILL SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY

You, Weiner, and Obama have yet to supply a single shred of factual evidence to support this fantastical, imaginary claim. Your words are opinions, and nothing more.

I just DID provie you with all the numbers, all thats left is for you to read them. The US spends about twice as much total on healthcare, and even if you take into account that the government only pays about 45% of this total spending , it is still more than Britain is spending, for example

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH

This is the source of my previous comment, as you can see, every single country spends LESS on healthcare in total, and probably less (havent checked them all) in government money as well. They also have universal healthcare, and trust me, I am from such a country it is nothing, NOTHING like the nonsense you see on FOX and insurance-affiliated propaganda sites on the net. I challenge you to dig up some real data on how healthcare is WORSE in ANY government funded, universal healthcare system than it is in the US and real data on exactly how much more expensive it is. I'm sorry, anecdotes will not do. I could sit here all night describing horror stories from US healthcare, but I will leave you with a single, heartbreaking story http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2009/08/who_needs_health_insurance_whe.php

Such stories can be found in all systems, unfortunately, but ultimately it is the actual data that lasts, and the US is consistently on the wrong side. I wish you and all Americans the best, and I hope you will see reason when it stares you so blankly in the face.

I found something that you absolutely must watch. I found it tonight by chance and thought it pertained to our discussion perfectly and it's spoken beautifully. I think it will help you understand some of what I've explained that I might not have had the best words for and it should help clear up your thoughts on what atheists are not saying. (P.S. I'm not implying that you're saying that I should be more open minded, it just happened to be the prime relation point in the video). I implore you to watch it a few times.

Open-mindedness (youtube link)

To continue our discussion; I think that what we actually disagree on is the definition of "truth".

You're saying that truth is subjective; meaning that truth is contingent on the presence of a mind.

I'm saying that truth is objective; meaning that truth it exists outside of mind and that we can know it through the tools of logic, reason, and the scientific method.

The reason that I say that truth is objective, not contingent on a mind, is that if it were subjective, you could have two truths which contradict each other and then you'd be left with a paradoxes.

I think that you're boyfriend/girlfriend analogy is a good one because it helps proves a point.

That being that there is no such thing as "more true" when analyzing multiple claims. "More true" is a misnomer

It is a claim for the girlfriend to say that she feels heartbreak.
It is a claim for the boyfriend to say that he does not feel heartbreak.

The logical reason why they can both be true in their claims is that both claims are independent of one another. More important than knowing that both are true is to know why both claims can logically be true at the same time. Neither claim is dependent or contingent on the other claim in order to be true.

With the concept of subjective truth, if I were to consider what I believe as "my truths", what need would I have to question whether or not they are true? I mean, if they're my truths then that means that they're already true, no need to evaluate them. If everything that I believed was subjectively "my truth", then how would I distinguish functional reality from "my reality"? If truth is subjective, how could I determine how large or small my world is verses the rest of the world? What would I do when I come to a truth claim that contradicts my truth claim? How can something be true for me and the contradictory be true at the same time for someone else? Most importantly, how can I define reality if all truth is subjective? Furthermore, if only some truth is subjective, then how do we know what is subjectively true and what is objectively true? I'm sure that you can see that there are a lot of problems with the concept of subjective truth.

A huge key point that I wish to address:

You said "for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility"

I cannot agree with that statement at all. Besides my disagreement that truth is relative; for someone to be insulted by someone contesting a truth claim means that the person insulted has more invested in believing the claim rather than in caring whether or not the claim is true or not. Furthermore, if someone mistakingly holds a lie to be truth and you know that it's a lie and lead them to understand why their believed claim is false, you're helping that person to avoid any potential pitfalls associated with the lie; I cannot see how that is an exercise in futility.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'charity, animals, make a wish, sick kids, charity, uh uh uh' to 'charity, animals, make a wish, sick kids, charity, uh uh uh, heartbreaking story, tits' - edited by calvados

Heartbreaking.

That's heartbreaking. The Church owes her some major wiener.

HOLY JEBUS! This poor son of a bitch is within 5 years and two heartbreaks of shooting up a schoolyard.

Ah, the schadenfreude.

Good skills for the forward to notice the ball coming loose and kicking it toward the goal. Heartbreaking for the goalie.

when writing my post i was trying to find her story (remembered so few details i couldn't find the story) it is heartbreaking... ashame she had to die to we could know more about how mercury can kill us (goes through gloves in seconds!)

Q

In reply to this comment by bellman:
Yeah, mercury is not too bad. Dimethylmercury, on the other hand, is so incredibly poisonous that it's slowly and horribly fatal if you get just a few drops of it on your fucking latex gloves. Poor Karen Wetterhan.

I can never, ever remember the best ones when quizzed like this. Same goes for best movies etc.

Ones I have liked of late are (in no order):
The Dark Tower series: Stephen King
The Book Thief: Marcus Zusak
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius: Dave Eggers (Currently reading another of his books actually)
The Mars Trilogy: Kim Stanley Robinson
LOTR: Tolkien
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Douglas Adams
Many Discworld novels: Terry Pratchett
Dune: Frank Herbert
The Dressmaker: Rosalie Ham (An Australian gothic novel, just brilliant, I'd love to see this made into a film)
2010: Arthur C Clarke (Yeah, I like it better than 2001, sue me)


But inevitably someone will mention some book and I'll go 'AAAH, yeah, LOVED that one'!... so yeah, there are many others that I'm sure should be here, and probably in place of others here... (I just scrolled up and added some that others had put, because I'd forgotten them)...

Catch 22 : I just wanted to say that for all the praise that this book gets, I couldn't get through it. He made his points, set up his things, and then seemed to repeat the same damn jokes/observations over and over and over again to the point where I just stopped reading it... sorry, but it bored me. Good start, lost me soon after.

Fascinating.

* Why are so many done side on? Seems to be fraught with great danger for the ship, the first one has a huge amount of water flow up onto its deck. The ones done front on seem much smoother
* The one on the tubes may look dangerous, but it worked very smoothly indeed compared to some of the others.
* The low quality of the front first one making the large wave... me thinks those people laugh just a little too damn much. And where the hell are the engineers etc. telling people NOT to stand there? (and the others with the same issue). Someone is going to get swept off and killed during one of those.
* How incredibly, incredibly heartbreaking must the last one have been. ALL that work by SO many people... gone, just like that.

Terrible.

But great video. Ships of that size fascinate me. I worked on the ANZAC frigates for a while as a student engineer, and I was in hog heaven being around all those MASSIVE bits of steel, and being able to climb around inside half finished ships. Amazing engineering.