"Science frequently produces theses that are proven false or inadequate, and are replaced with more accurate ones."

Look Imayliffe, your statement here is utterly problematic.
If science is anything it is the will of particular human being, a particular man, to approach things in a certain way, or it is a set of traits of a particular human beings.

Um. No.

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. There is nothing individualistic or human about science. It is what it is. That's the definition of science.

YOU via your statement are turning science into a "thing" into an ideology, an entity .

Umm. No. I use the term science to refer to the process of "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." That's all. It's not that hard to understand.

SCIENCE doesn't do anything, if it does we are in big trouble, it means that something which was in essence the work, labour and passion of people - who chose a certain PHILOSOPHICAL outlook, who chose a way of life, has been turned into a brainless, unconscious mas of ideas.

I'm really not sure what rhetorical bone you are trying to pick here, but it's a red herring. Thank you for capitalizing the important words though, I don't read good.

IF a scientist doesn't have a philosophicaly inclined mind, or some form of eccentricity that removes him from the popular mass he is a priori a functionary, he could be working for the communist party or an unitarian church.

What? Where the hell do you get that from? Haha. There is no law that says you have to be weird to be a scientist, and if you aren't weird then you might as well work for a church. Whatever weed you are smoking, I want some.
.
The scientist had to be a skeptic or a passionate lunatic. If he isn't he's just the promulgator of a worldview, even if the worldview is a dynamic one.

Skepticism and science do go hand in hand in many ways, but again, I'm not sure where you are getting this shit. There is no scientists's handbook out there that requires you to fit a certain personality type or mindset before starting an experiment.

It's possible I am misunderstanding your point here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the hell you are trying to get at. You sound really really stoned, tbh.


finally...
Skepticism is not an end in itself, you are skeptical because you WANT truth, and this is an utterly alien concept far removed from any experimental study.

I don't think skepticism means what you think it means.


One has to have a basis of beliefs to function (and one does). The fact that the scientists and so called skeptics aren't analysing their set of beliefs frightens me more than nuts who fly planes into buildings.

Wow, way to play the 9/11 card there, chief. So you are saying that non-introspective scientists scare you more than terrorists who murder our friends and family.

You need a fucking reality check and a head exam while you are at it.

Wow. I'm still upvoting this to get this some attention dang nammit.

And leave ladybug and farvie alone. They're only guilty for being heavy hearted after watching something like this.

Ironic how all this reminds me of the whole 'are you for the war or against the war' debate tactics where if you sympathize with Iraqis you're a terrorist!

Same thing here except if you upvoted this, you're a inhumane animal!

oh the irony irony irony.

the reason why this was such a hit in Japan was because most Japanese public schools are run like private/catholic schools in America. Lotta pent up frustration of teachers trying to keep their kids 'uniform' while making them dress in one as well.

So a fantastical world where people losing it and going on a killing frenzy may have delighted its viewers. Of course, in America, the only thing we can relate to something like this is Columbine.

Different world, different audience.

BTW, if you liked this flim and you're an American. That proves that you're a terrorist!!

Just a couple of points for polite, intellectually honest discussion.

In a society, laws change all the time according to the will of the people. Why are the laws of war adopted 60 years ago immutable today? The General there in the video talks as if the convention is impossible to change, perfect and unamendable for the remainder of eternity. I think the GC is a good thing, but I don't want to go so far as to say it is more sacrosanct than any other law. Even the US Constitution (wish my country had a Constitution) can be amended, why not the GC?

On moral grounds, aren't there extreme circumstances in which torture is warranted? For example, you capture a terrorist involved in a nuclear plot... isn't any method moral in such a case? Is one to believe that it is really more moral to allow millions to die just to avoid inflicting some pain on the terror-plotter? I think there must be cases where any form of questioning is acceptable. Is sleep deprivation, slapping, loud music, etc. really torture? Shouldn't the definition of torture be limited to techniques that cause bodily harm?

I don't really know anything about Rumsfeld's handling of the DoD. I know Democrats hate him, and some Republicans too - I don't really have enough information to form an opinion. So I'm not defending Rumsfeld. Just questioning some of the reasoning in the clip and in some of the comments here.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses... I'm really interested in how some of you come to some of your conclusions.

"I somewhat agree with both of you. Yes, Islamic terrorists have thernfront page right now. The KKK is still alive and kicking..not sociall nacceptable anymore, but it's still around. Obviously hate between races has not been "crushed" by anyone yet.

They both have a common denominator... hatred. It's all the same to me. "

All very true points Swampgirl, but it's also important to highlight the similarities as well as a very important distinction.

Such as, Islamic terrorists and white supremacists are both made up of poor and uneducated people, both believe in an extreme versions of their religion, both believe that outsiders are the ones keeping them down and oppressed, both praise intolerance, and left to their own devices the Islamists would kill anyone who is not Muslim, and then they will turn on and kill other fellow Muslims who are not Muslim enough for them. The same with the white supremacists with christians respectivily.

The difference with the white supremacists in America is that they are held in check by law enforcement. While we are still a free society, they are free to believe as they wish but as soon as they cross the line of the law, the authorities will come down on them. Unlike Islamic terrorists, they are NOT held in check by the authorities, in fact in most of their native countries, they ARE the authority and supported and funded by the state (ex. Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbellah, Hamas etc.)

I somewhat agree with both of you. Yes, Islamic terrorists have the front page right now. The KKK is still alive and kicking..not socially acceptable anymore, but it's still around. Obviously hate between races has not been "crushed" by anyone yet.

They both have a common denominator... hatred. It's all the same to me.

In reply to the first two arguments:
An eye for an eye is a great way to live 'till the whole world goes blind.

The fact is that immoral things happen every day, and this makes us feel justified to do things twice as bad to the "evil" doers. But ethics tells us that capitol punishment and such is just saying "well you killed a guy so we'll kill you; you'll learn you lesson . . . post mortem." So here we're just saying "well you're here, so I'll assume you're a terrorist, strip you and force you to make a pyramid." That's not punishment, that's sadism and the people in charge are putting blame on lower officers.

"Burn them all, the world needs more light."
To kill someone out of convenience is to put ones own life before anyone else's. Killing one whom presumedly deserves it is putting one's actions ahead of their life. The most powerful people are the ones that have the power to kill and doesn't. So we could kill all those people out of convenience, or we could let them live and not needlessly torture them.