In reply to your comment:
“I must have watched this 4 episode OVA like 10 times. I still don't get it, and I still love it.”

That's probably because it's a six episode OVA. The last two episodes clear up all the questions left.

Honest.....

Unfortunately, like the last Nazi video, this one was also posted on youtube by someone wishing to glorify Nazism.

Although I do find this video fascinating from a historical point of view, it should be noted that the intent of the person who submitted this on youtube was to glorify the Nazi's. In one of his other videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7bu_kKwHHQ) he made some pretty disturbing in the youtube comments section.

Oh, I actually thought I cancelled this submission since I wasn't sure it was appropriate to post full episodes like this. I can post the rest of this if you guys want. (it's 5 parts total for this episode, plus another 2 or 3 for the next day aftermath)

ScottMitchel:

Atheism includes both a 'lack of belief in god' and 'belief there is no god'. Some refer to the former as 'weak atheism' and the latter 'strong atheism'. I consider myself a 'weak atheist' in the sense of god in general, since the latter would require proving a negative, which in this case seems impossible. That said, I also don't believe in the dragons and fairies, but I can't say for absolute certainty that they don't exist.

Agnostics feel that people can't really know what the spiritual world is. They don't know if there is a god or isn't, and tend to hold skepticism towards religion. Given your comment, I think you would fall into the agnostic category, since you seem to not be too confident in whether or not to believe in god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

So, a previous neo-con coming out and exposing their project to stain Clinton's character is 'opinion'. Or do you mean Bork's statement that Clinton is a sociopath? I'm sorry, please be more specific.

krupo:

His message isn't one to the religious, which from your argument I assume you are, but to those who are secular. If you come from the position that religion is true, then his argumnet won't make sense.

Whether or not people take the bible literally, people do use it as a guide to their choices in life. While you can find clearly good moral lessons in the bible, the bible itself is not a text that comes from reason, but one that was developed to promote a certain type of belief. When you base your decisions on something without reason, your decisions themselves are without reason.

Your argument against homosexuality, contraception, and pre-marital sex is an example of this. There is no reason to believe that any of these things are wrong, yet many people argue against them on the basis of religion.

One of the major arguments he makes is that religious moderates are afraid to take on those who base their opinions on religious belief, because attacking someone's belief is not PC. This emboldens religious extremists to push their views on others, and while they can argue against the evils of athiesm and homosexuality, secular people can't argue against the evils of religion. Certainly religious people also have to mask some of their message with political correctness as well, but it seems for many secular moderates this has gone further than just the message. They have developed fundamentally flawed logic that it is necessary to 'respect' other peoples religion in order to achieve social harmony.

swampgirl:

I agree police have to protect themselves. They are in a very dangerous line of work.

That said, non-compliance doesn't imply dangerous. For example, say in public someone on the street gets in your way and starts harassing you. They might be very scary looking, and you might be afraid they could hurt you. However, unless they actually threaten you or try to physically harm you, if you were to hit them you'd be charged with assault, and if you used a taser, add a weapons charge too.

Police, on the other hand, get to assume someone is 'dangerous' enough to use physical force, just because they didn't follow their orders. Why do police get this extra ability to 'protect' themselves? There are many people who have significally more dangerous jobs dealing with the public, such as taxi drivers, and they don't get anywhere near that privledge.

In terms of the officers 'right' to use physical force cause she didn't do what they said, well, what the police had done might technically have been legal, but that doesn't make it appropriate. In a situation where the person poses no threat, perceived or otherwise, using force needlessly escalates a situation that could have easily been brought to a close peacefully.

Let me make clear that there are clearly times police need to use force. If she were stopped for a more serious crime, such as burglary, the police officer could assume she was dangerous. If she had physically resisted the officer, then fine. She was stopped for a traffic violation. She didn't physically resist the officer. The officer had no reason to suspect she was any more danger than your average person walking down the street. While I the officer shouldn't have to wrestle with her, since the situation was calm and there was no danger, there was no reason not to be patient.

I wish G4 could have actually gotten some competent people to debate Jack. Adam Sessler was useless, and the industry guy was taking a lame position about rap music being worse than games. Jack Thompson, while a serious jackass, was at least bringing up studies to support his argument. His opponent should have been ready to refute his study and provide his own research. They also failed to mention the ESRB as a mechanism to give parents more choice.

There are many who are ready to debate someone like Jack Thompson. Why couldn't G4 bring one of them in to have a real debate? Oh yeah, because G4 is a joke.

dag:

Although many of them are from a time when being an athiest could get you killed, that doesn't mean they weren't. Many were self-described 'deists', which is a belief that god created the set of rules with which the universe follows, but doesn't have an active role in it. It's likely that many took this position not necesarily because it's what they truly believed, but because it was a way to be an athiest but not piss off the church too much.

While the woman should have done what the officer asked, the officer went way over the line by escalating the situation with violence. She was being stopped for *TRAFFIC* violations. She did not steal, hurt, shoot, or anything from anyone. The officer was in *NO* danger, and he could have waited her out. Was she being a bitch? Yes. But the punishment for being a bitch isn't 30 thousands volts.

You might be smart enough to realize when an officer orders you to do something, you fucking do it. However, most people have very little experience with authority, and just because they don't jump to a police officers orders doesn't automatically make the use of force legitimate. If this were a different situation, where she was stopped for something more serious, or was physically resisting, fine. She was incredibly stupid, but the officer was being a bully. Those we entrust with such power should be those we can trust not to abuse it.

therealblankman:

Nah, watching Starcraft games is pretty fun. It's really cool to see all the excitement that the koreans put to the game. The main problem though is that most of the games by the pros tend to be over very fast. Whoever can rush first without screwing up wins.

The cops had uncuffed him in the elevator instead of when they got someplace secure, and then provoked him by getting in his face. The guy brought his hands up a bit, and then they attacked him. They *wanted* an excuse to beat him up. Beating up a guy in handcuffs looks more suspicious.

Fortunately these cops appear to be getting in trouble for this. Maybe if more cops who abuse their positions got kicked out and thrown in jail, the good cops who are just doing their job won't find so many distrusting them.

djsunkid: Yeah, I saw when that video of the woman in her car being tazered, and it was disgusting. In that case, the women wasn't being physical with the officer, and it could been brought to a conclusion without the use of force.

In this case, the guy was clearly drunk, and when placed under arrest, was physically fighting the officer, and trying to stumble himself away. I think the officer could have been more patient with the repeated use of it, since someone who is drunk and has just been tazered might not be able to fully comprehend what is going on and not instantly respond to your orders.

I'm concerned as to whether tazering someone is better than pushing them to the ground, which I think officer could have done in this case. I imagine it's certainly safer for the officer, but is it safer for the person being tazered? There have only been fairly adhoc studies on how safe tazers are, and there have been cases where it has killed people, in particular those high on cocaine.

The biggest issue with the taser is it is causing the police to use force, in some cases deadly, in cases where they may not have originally. In this case, it may have been the safer option, but there are many examples of them being used inappropriately.

You got the url wrong. It's http://www.mediamatters.org/