See, I'm a liberal and a Democrat and I opposed the war in Iraq but I don't see how portraying Americans negatively is at all a good thing and will do anything other than help increase tensions between the U.S. and other states.

Take it however you will. I'd prefer Korean films didn't exhibit negative (or even overly positive) stereotypes of Americans. I'd prefer American films didn't exhibit negative stereotypes of Koreans. If you want to call it personal butthurt feel free to. I call it xenophobia.

I honestly and truly feel contempt for this kind of retronyming revisionism. I understand using gender-neutral terms like "they" instead of "he" or "congressperson" instead of "congressman" or "humanity" instead of "mankind," but things like arbitrarily respelling words really sticks out to me as both unnecessary and…

As I said in my post those who say "man" = everyone are technically correct, because that is the original meaning (and one that is still frequently used). That being said, the word has become gendered over the centuries so that it is no longer as universally gender-neutral as it once was, so humanity is a better term…

Xenophobia is xenophobia, regardless of the target.

Two things.

So, will all the American characters without exception be assholes again? Because as well-made and interesting as The Host was, that really turned the original off for me.

Right, but there seems to be some recurring themes of "there are some thing man is not meant to know" or "don't play god," which are endemic of vaguely technophobic science fiction. I'm not sure I've actually run into a scientist character on Fringe who hasn't screwed up massively.

Hitler was actually quite the visionary in a lot of ways and from what I've read he was highly intelligent, if blinded by his own ideology and distaste for traditional intellectualism. If he'd been less motivated by rage and hate and more by other, more positive emotions, he might have actually gone on to become a…

Ah, the ol' "you don't like America enough" argument. I'm going to take a guess and say you're probably just trolling for responses, so this is the last you'll get.

Ah, I can understand that. There is a great deal of convenience with the new reply system (and it never gets clogged up the way the old one did) but it can be difficult sometimes to figure out the context of a reply within the inbox folder alone.

Eh, what? I'm not talking about Star Trek. I'm talking about Fringe. TOS has much better science than Fringe, even if some parts are outdated and other parts fantastical.

Arguably, Star Trek wouldn't have counted for the first list since its third season is generally considered to have been its worst and possibly endemic of the show's staff running out of creative juice, but it's true that it's loss was certainly mourned at the time.

To a certain extent you're correct, Fringe isn't hard science fiction.

It sort of makes me laugh when I recall that J.J. Abrams described the show as "not science fiction" because a lot of the science is "plausible."

Hmm. I really like John Noble and Fringe, but him hosting a program about gruesome scientific experiments reminds me how I'm not entirely comfortable with what seems to be a core idea in Fringe: namely, that science is (or perhaps scientists are) bad.

"Since kids aren't born with any professional mindsets, do you honestly think that's what's being claimed? "

China invading the U.S. isn't very plausible nor was the idea of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Nonetheless, they are several degrees more plausible than America being invaded by an impoverished, third-world dictatorship with less than a tenth of the country's population and located all the way across the Pacific…

Gagh! They really should have just stuck with China as the bad guy. I know it would have been less marketable overseas but we're talking about a remake of a movie that was straight up American propaganda to begin with; it's a bit late to start pretending the premise isn't nationalistic or vaguely xenophobic at its…

I wouldn't be quite so strict with the time constraint you've given, but I think that on the whole you (and Dr. Gonzalez) are correct: the scientific method (and mindset) are relatively new to human thought and certainly don't arise naturally in development.