Well i don't like you whiny cronies. Well I can't stand you sellout phonies. Punching women blindly, putting out mainstream radio friendly pop crap since 1993. Stealing the kids' hard earned money. Funding your extended childhood unkindly. Calling it "punk" and underground. What's that sound? You are the corporations. All your hate is what you became. My rights treaded on by you, all we found the same. Ben your legacy makes me want to puke, ben you make me want to puke ice all over you ;)
the beauty of music is that a musician(s) can say whatever the fuck they want and we can listen or not,agree or disagree or make comments or whatever.youve gone on and on and should have made your point by now.but your point is not physically helping or aiding anybody or anything in the world,after all, its just an opinion,like this song.
This song is good. Period. Punk or whatever you want to say. Don't be a douche about it if you don't like it. more people like it that came to watch it than don't; so piss off if you're going to be a cocksquire about it.
love weasel, they played this when i saw them in covington. rather disappointing when the entire crowd chanted "I wanna be naked" and they didnt play it :(
i stand corrected---i know now who OMM is---thought this was a cover song---they do confuse me with thier country biased punk rock songs lol--id still pit to them though
The diffeerence is I ADMIT that my beliefs are based on faith. You do not ADMIT that yours are also based on faith. And FUCK! It's just a good song from a good band!
It's a song saying that religion has helped people through tough times. You can spout the Bush shit all you want. But there are poor people, who don't have a lot of money or social standings, and they would like to believe there is some justice in the world. You want to shoot down their hopes too? I f you don't believe in a God, that's fine. But don't try to force your ideas on me or others. You don't know that it's not true any more than I KNOW it is true.
@spencerwill If you expect another party to receive notice of a post, you must click 'Reply'.
Firstly, my initial post says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of god. The contention is that reality matters. Secondly, the notion that religion gives poor people a sense of justice is bullshit. It does nothing to change their condition, but instead encourages them to remain obedient, complacent, and wait for a fairy-tale ending after death. Ever wonder who thought that one up? - - cont.
Thirdly, no one's forcing anything on you. I posted an opinion, but you engaged me. Remember? Ever heard the term 'persecutory delusion'? Google it.
Lastly, you're right in one respect; I can't prove the nonexistence of god. I also can't prove the nonexistence of pixies. In either case, I can't truthfully claim I know these things do not exist. But what you've probably failed to recognize here is that I'm not making a positive claim. You are.
So it's not good enough to let people believe what they want? You have to silence them and say they are insane and dangerous to the community? Get off your elitest horse!
@spencerwill What the fuck are you talking about? No one has said anything here about silencing anyone, nor has anyone suggested that people of faith are necessarily insane. I'm guessing you're trying to finish an argument begun with some atheist, and decided to drop the thing in front of the first secularly oriented person you came across. Not interested! As for being elitist, you gotta be kidding me. What's more elitist than religion, which invariably loathes to ever be questioned?
Nofx song "Happy Guy" is somewhat on the same subject as this song is.
A part of the lyrics from that song goes
"....He found the word of God could make his life seem less insane
So he shares what he's read, what he understands, it makes
sense to him, it makes perfect sense,
He's never seen the world so clearly..."
It felt like as if they both where on the subject of why religion is somewhat good and needed - in which ever for it might be: Athieism or Hindu or whatever. I just wanted to share.
Ya Dorak as i agree with faith and beliefs creating more problems then its worth, i think its more about power or who's in control. I believe its when people are giving too much control and power they start to think they ARE god.
if you've ever question beliefs that you hold you're not alone but you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor in the case of christianity and judaism there exist the belief that spiritual matters are enslaved to history the buddhists believe that the functional aspects override the myth while other religions use the literal core to build foundations with see half the world sees the myth as fact while it's seen as a lie by the other half and the simple truth is that it's none of that and
I respect Ben, but his religious bias is showing here. He opines, "science and religion are not mutually exclusive", which may be true. However, it may also be untrue. Science is not an axiomatic system, whereas religion is, so it would depend on the religion. In the context of orthodoxies that inc. creationism, Ben is quite obviously wrong. He tries to rationalize faith and suggests "it doesn't matter if it's real or not". IMO, worldviews not based in reality are dangerous (ie Bush). It matters
@bambam669 It matters. Once one accedes to a series of baseless and irrational conclusions, they've predisposed themselves to pretty much any potentiality. All that's needed is a bit of rationalization. To paraphrase Weinberg, with or without religion, you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. No 'thing' is in and of itself good or bad, but the same can't be said for ideas. That's why we challenge them.
There is no good or bad, those are just words. Morality is completely sucjective and can in no way be gauged the same way by any individual. If it weren't religion they would find another cause to get behind.
@bambam669 That sort of post-modernist relativism is too far-reaching and it simply isn't valid in a mutual, reciprocal reality. I agree that morality is subjective, but ethics are not. As for 'cause', the issue isn't how shitheads might rationalize their predacious behaviour - which you seem to be arguing - it's how the perspectives of otherwise ethical people can be distorted. Religion, for example, ignores humanistic ethics in deference to esoteric notions of 'sin' and 'righteousness'.
Where exactly do you think ethics come from?...........PEOPLE! People that are subjective, so spare me the long response that. And it doesnt matter.Most people aren't actually religious. In fact if you opened your eyes you would see it holds little sway in western society. It's been replaced by commerce and reality television, just as that can be replaced. Religion, Countries, ideas in general are just symptoms of a sickness.
@bambam669 Your response is testimony to my assertion that your perspective on moral relativism is far too broad. Take the time to educate yourself on the subject of ethics, how it's distinct from morality, and hopefully you'll see the problems invested in your argument. As for 'religion holds little sway in western society', the majority still profess belief and it's influence is apparent. As for consumerism, nationalism, etc, these are extensions of religious thinking. So agreed on last point.
Personal perspective? I fail to see how your posts reflect a more or less personal perspective than my own. It's apparent you've projected your personality (ie, caps, exclamation marks, insults, failure to rebut), but that isn't the same thing. I think what you really mean is singular intuitive perspective; the cop-out that opinionated, intellectual adolescents use to avoid having to expend energy on educating themselves.
@bambam669 Was your petulant outburst intended to make a point? I suspect not as clearly you're still clueless as to the distinction. This is 101 stuff kid; I'd have thought a moral nihilist like yourself would be acquainted with this shit by now. Are you waiting for it to come out on blu-ray?
Kid? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? It was just the definition. I was trying to save you the time of having to look it up, being as you don't seem to know what a dictionary is. I love how you do go on though. It would seem that you have diarrhea of the mouth and constipationof the brain. You hide behind ideas that aren't your own because you can't think for yourself, I understand. Not everybody can have a clue.
@bambam669 Who am I talking to? The kid adverse to "wordy books" and oblivious to basic philosophical concepts. In any case, I think looking up dictionary references is a great first step. Now if you could just get someone to help you with meaning and context. Would you like some hints, or do you prefer the autodidactic nightmare you're creating for yourself?
In consideration of your last few posts, I think the terms 'ad hominem' and 'psychological projection' might also interest you.
Your "philosophical concepts" are little more than a mental circle jerk. " Look at me! I can spout off some jibberish some jerkoff wrote that I don't have anypersonal connection to!" That's all I'm hearing from you. That and dick in th mouth. I'm sure you read philosophy. I was into it myself when I was 18. Then I realized that it was a HUGE WASTE OF FUCKING TIME.......kinda like you and this banter..............So in closing, go fuck yourself.
@DorakoftheHillPeople I am an atheist, but I can respect certain aspects of religion. Even if its not true, if the person thinks it is and helps them get through a tough situation, "then it works and it gets the job done"
@FreeThinker727 As you'd suggested, tough situations often call for coping mechanisms, emotional and otherwise. Those mechanisms/strategies are available to everyone, irrespective of faith. But the sort of fatalism and lack of self-reliance that religion inspires is a weakened position, not a strengthened one. So, as for 'getting the job done', I challenge that notion. Consider this: If someone prayed for something and eventually got it, would you say prayer got the job done?
@DorakoftheHillPeople well a search of youtube uncovered this little gem---honestly i dont know who came first but im gunna still call it a badass cover after listening to the song by old Man Markley--search it on youtube
@scion6221 Old Man Markley's first album came out in 2011. My Brain Hurts by Schreeching Weasel came out in 1991, 20 years before. You're on the internet, you can find this stuff out for yourself, you know. That's what I did. BTW, this isn't John Lichtenberg, it's his girlfiriend, Robyn Robotron. I'm too lazy to log him out and log myself in to correct you.
Respond to this video...ooppsie---they covered SW---i saw more videos---never seen these guys play---dont think i would though--at least they give credit
@DorakoftheHillPeople nope, i'm not offended. i just think this kind of youtube philosophizing is annoying. okay a little offensive; precisely because nothing of substance is ever said. i was just trying to listen to a screeching weasel song, and your dimestore intellectualism gave me a headache. but i guess you're right, not every religious view is compatible with every scientific view... very deep... oh and religion and bush bad... anyway, sorry for the 'ad hominem' attack...
@hilarids I have no control over what you read, the inferences you make, or your physiology. As to the charge of dimestore intellectualism, thats ironic considering Bens fixation with Catholicism via Campbell. What else would you expect? In less than 500 characters, my original post challenged the idea that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and I further suggested that mystical worldviews are potentially quite dangerous. Fine if you dont agree, but sarcasm simply isnt necessary.
@DorakoftheHillPeople cmon, you didn't challenge anything. science and religion ARE NOT mutually exclusive. i.e. one can hold both religious and scientific views without contradiction. you are right though: dangerous viewpoints are potentially dangerous. "it doesn't matter if it's real or not" because the function of myth is metaphor. the 'truth' expressed by metaphor can be communicated in a fiction.
@hilarids 'ARE NOT' within this context is an exclusive statement, and you and I had already agreed that simply isnt accurate. As I'd said in my original post, it may be true, but it may also be untrue. You can pigeon-hole the point, or you can be rational and ackowledge that the statement is flawed. As for myth as metaphor, there are several potential problems with that view, but more directly that point mischaracterizes the lyric which allows for literal transmission of any idea.
@DorakoftheHillPeople your argument seems to be this: some scientific and religious views are incompatible, therefore science and religion are mutually exclusive. do you see why the conclusion does not follow? as for myth as metaphor, what are the 'potential' problems? and please explain how i mischaracterize the lyric "But you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor". i do apologize for insulting you though. it's not you that i have a problem with, it's what you (mis)represent.
@hilarids You are inferring too far; that is your conclusion, not mine. I never said that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Im saying that the assertion that science and religion are not mutually exclusive is not accurate. The problem with myth as metaphor in the context of the song should be apparent. The example he cites is one of a personage with a reliance on literal belief. Not metaphorical. This is a typical apologist tact. Masked man fallacy?
@DorakoftheHillPeople now we're getting into the mud aren't we. this is very confusing. it is not the case that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, yet it is not the case that science and religion are mutually exclusive. what gives you the idea that this 'personage' relies on literal belief? in what? and perhaps you can explain the masked man fallacy and its relevance here. why not 'unmask' some of this jargon and speak english, if only for the sake of the unwashed masses?
@hilarids This should not be confusing. The point is you cant make any exlusive declaration concerning religion without first describing what is invested in the term. In the song, for instance, he alludes to religion and faith as somehow being synonomous. Hence, the fallacy. Having your cake and eating it too, etc.
@DorakoftheHillPeople good, now i think i understand. you are saying that science and FAITH are mutually exclusive. i suppose the idea would be that scientific method requires us to make empirically testable hypotheses and submit them to experiment, while faith, in opposition, is the acceptance of beliefs without evidence. in this example maybe the woman believes something like "whatever happens, i'm ok". but isn't science silent here?
@hilarids Yes, generally speaking that is the essence of what I'm saying. As I'd said in my original post, unlike religion (or faith if you will), science is not an axiomatic system. As for the woman's experience, I should point out that even secularly oriented persons such as myself rely on faith to some extent, however the things I have faith in are available to everyone. They are components of our mutual reality, so in some respects I suppose science isn't entirely silent.
@DorakoftheHillPeople good, so then you agree with the lyric "science and (faith) are not mutually exclusive". and we agree that even secular, rational, (scientific?) people such as yourself rely on faith. but you suggest that 'secular' faith is available to everyone, while 'religious' faith is not? because the things you have faith in are 'real' whereas religious faith involves belief in things that are 'unreal'? please explain.
@hilarids No. When we talk about faith, it's important to delineate the term. I have faith in people or processes with which I have direct experience or reasonable expectation, which can be experienced by other people, often in precisely the same way. This sort of faith is contingent on results and varying degrees of probability/predictability, and it isn't limited to secularly oriented people. This can't be earnestly said of faith in mythical characters.
@DorakoftheHillPeople so you have faith, at least, that the future will continue as the past. but, of course you don't call this "god".
faith in mythical characters... existence?...ability to communicate important messages through metaphor? i'm confused again. and if what you are saying about religious faith being only available to religious people is true, isn't it kinda true by definition?
@hilarids Why would I call it god? If you want to lean toward Spinoza I'd probably be somewhat more receptive, but the concept seems entirely unnecessary in any vein. The question of a god's existence seems a silly one, as by definition it/they/he/she isn't falsifiable. The better question is, what value is there in the idea? Within an anthropolgical context, it has some value. Beyond that, it is effectively redundant.
@hilarids That's it? More pathetic self-promotion? The fact that the points remain unaddressed has not gone unnoticed, neither has your apparent lack of understanding concerning Quine and Carnap. For someone who struggles with basic concepts, you certainly are confident.
@hilarids As for religious faith, or 'esoteric wisdom', vs truth, I suppose it depends on what you mean by truth. I mean, religions regularly declare truth in and out of existence at will. I suppose I could paraphrase Kant and say that metaphysical questions are not matters of knowledge, but the simpler answer would be that the accumulation of knowledge is a collective enterprise and "truth" should be apparent and available to all. This is true of science. Not religion.
@hilarids Another childish rant? And still no response? I should point out that I've answered every one of your posts and tolerated your petulant, troll-like outbursts, while you have yet to state your position. Is this what constitutes a 'substantive discussion' in your mind? As concerns Kant, I have no trouble accepting that you're not sure. Another example of an emerging pattern.
Lastly, I'd suggest you consider the term "psychological projection'. You wear it very well.
@DorakoftheHillPeople my position is that philosophical discussions should lead towards greater clarity. the best way i know to achieve this is by making arguments. that is, come up with a set of (simply stated) premises which logically entail a conclusion. then, we can examine the premises. furthermore, stating the names of philosophers, using lots of jargon, and blurting out lists of obscure statements all lead to lesser clarity. but this is a pissing contest, not a discussion. right?
@DorakoftheHillPeople@DorakoftheHillPeople back to the substance though... you claimed something like 'science covers everything', thus leaving no room for faith. i countered that science requires an assumption (an axiom, if you will): that the laws of nature are constant throughout space and time. you don't call your faith in this assumption faith in god. some others do, i think, or at least use the mythical figure of god as a metaphor for the order of the universe.
@hilarids Note the order of response. Hopefully we can avoid another confused episode.
1. No. My 'claim' was and is readily apparent: science can be applied to everything in the known universe. By this we mean, the natural universe. Definitively. Science does not concern itself with things presumed to occupy a mystical or 'supernatural' realm.
2. No. Thus nothing. Faith is distinct. As for, religiously oriented faith, it is patently inconsistent with the scientific method.
@DorakoftheHillPeople axioms are 'definitively' not empirically testable claims. there is nothing about the scientific method that says one can not make assumptions that are not empirically testable. if you are claiming that any claim that is not empirically testable is thereby relegated to the realm of the 'mystical' or 'supernatural' or 'nonsense', then again (no i'm not being 'cute') what is the empirical test for this claim? this is a very old problem.
@hilarids "axioms are 'definitively' not empirically testable claims"
Well that'd depend on the axiom and the criteria. But yes, it may be that they are not. But it's a moot point as science is not an axiomatic system. This is reserved for disciplines such as mathematics, law, and religion. Science doesn't acknowledge 'absolute' or even 'proof' in the same sense. When science takes the position that something is 'true', what they're saying is it's very close to 99.99% probable. And vice-versa.
@hilarids "there is nothing about the scientific method that says one can not make assumptions that are not empirically testable."
The scientific method is restricted to observable phenomena, and the inferences we make are explicitly delineated, test or no test. The same method is applied to experiential phenomena and so-called anecdotal 'evidence. This isn't a problem. It's a strength. Assumptions mean nothing without the mutual component.
4. No. Physical 'laws' are contingent upon strictly empirical observation and experimentation, not assumptions. Where they break down (ie, black holes) exceptions are noted, spurring further investigation.
5. I do not have any faith in a god or gods. I recognize that others do, and that some see nature as god. Hence my earlier reference to Spinoza. This was not a philosophical argument, despite your mischaracterization. It was a rejection of same as practicably worthless.
@DorakoftheHillPeople the fact is that we all make assumptions. both inductive and deductive reasoning require assumptions (and, i imagine you use both (to some extent)). you can argue that your assumptions are more useful than others, but you can't reject others' assumptions based on the fact that they are assumptions (without being hypocritical).
@hilarids "you can argue that your assumptions are more useful than others, but you can't reject others' assumptions based on the fact that they are assumptions"
All reasoning requires first assumptions. My contention is that the extent to which we accede to those assumptions should be contingent upon observation and experience. To liken this apparency to say, the assumption that fairies are real, is ludicrous. I can, and do, accept and/or reject assumptions in probabilistic terms. So do you.
@DorakoftheHillPeople so, science and faith apply to different domains. science to the domain of claims we can submit to empirical testing, faith to the domain of claims that we accept without empirical evidence so that everything doesn't fall apart. it applies to things like god, the constancy of natural law, the axioms of logic, etc. thus, sing it, "science and religion are not mutually exclusive". even if we substitute "faith" for "religion".
1. No. You're assigning that. I don't agree and have said as much. Religion occupying a 'domain' is a troublesome concept, as the only certain thing the religions of the world share is an imaginary element. I think that it's quite telling that, despite the seemingly infinite latitude this sort of system permits, the vast majority are now extinct. Does this imply that the 'domain' of religion is for the most part a failure?
2. No. If anything, you've illuminated an argument for the position that science and religion are mutually exclusive. This is something that even I see little value in.
@DorakoftheHillPeople i feel like we're going around in circles, but i'll try one more time. if i understand you correctly, you seem to be claiming that science does not require any assumption. but usually we think of science as involving inference from the observed to the non-observed (inductive reasoning). and, of course, inductive reasoning (as i have said) requires an assumption that the non-observed will be 'like' the observed in some sense.
@DorakoftheHillPeople i suppose your claim is that your assumptions are 'reality-based'. but then you need to provide some kind of criterion of reality.
@hilarids "but then you need to provide some kind of criterion of reality"
I think you'd earlier stated, "now we're getting into the mud". Consider that your desire to reduce this exchange to a philosophical argument may be why you find this exchange circular.
By reality, we usually mean 'mutual reality'. So, I don't need to provide the criterion, we do. I believe we'd established that some time ago.
@DorakoftheHillPeople in general, don't science and faith apply to different domains? i don't see any inconsistency in accepting a great number of beliefs on faith (e.g. god is good, i should be nice to people, the external world exists, the law of non-contradiction holds) while still holding that empirical claims require experimental evidence.
@hilarids Well, I'd have to say no. Science applies to any and every phenomenon in the known universe. Can science also speak to morality, intuition, and the like? I think so. Morality, for example, is an extension of mutual empathy; a product of natural selection. As for consistency, I recognize that a great many people claim to be able to reconcile their religious views with a seperate scientific worldview. But isn't this really just compartmentalizing? IMO these views are not consistent.
@DorakoftheHillPeople are you saying that only empirically verified beliefs are justified? ok, i'll play. what is the empirical evidence for that statement?
and, so, if morality and intuition are to be explained by natural selection, then wouldn't you have to say "it doesn't matter if its real or not, if it works then it gets the job done" ; )
and, is that just your (unconsidered) opinion that these views are inconsistent, or do you have empirical evidence for that? or at least an argument?
@hilarids Cute. The 'empircal evidence' is, I posted it. You may want to play semantics, I don't. I'm quite sure we both have a solid understanding of the terms involved. As for 'getting the job done', either your being cute again or you're unaware that natural selection may also favour comparatively inferior systems. But more directly, coping mechanisms are available to everyone. The addition of religious belief adds nothing; it detracts as it fosters fatalism and a lack of self reliance.
@DorakoftheHillPeople i'm sorry, but this isn't 'semantics'. give me an argument that shows that... nevermind, this is never going to go anywhere is it? disappointing. maybe some day you'll learn some humility and realize that you know a lot less than you think you do. this after all is the central lesson of philosophy. you seem very concerned about religious dogmatism, but secular dogmatism is no better.
@hilarids As for what you think I represent, again I'd suggest you're inferring too far. We clearly have different perspectives relative to this song and its contentions, but beyond that, and despite your assignations, not much certain can be said concerning either of us. In any case, neither opinion diminishes my appreciation for this song or Screeching Weasel. As for your repeated insults, those reflect on you. I am unaffected. So, the apology isnt necessary.
@DorakoftheHillPeople anyhow, i think the point of this song is that myth is a device that humans use to help understand the world and cope with it. also, that myths are not supposed to be 'true' in the 'direct correspondence with reality' kind of way, only metaphorically. also, that amazingly somehow we get along in the world and everything keeps working despite our limitations. none of this seems controversial or 'biased'. quit debasing a good song with interesting lyrics.
@hilarids Debasing a good song? It seems to me the point is to provoke thought, not demand agreement. If you think my perspective debases the song, consider that may speak to your preconceptions rather than mine. As to the content, Ben makes some pretty exlusive declarations which would be rather ironic in consideration of your analysis. Dont you think? Myths are untrue, definitively. Accepting them as useful metaphors only entices us to remain satisfied with our ignorance. Nothing changes.
@DorakoftheHillPeople huh? entices us to remain satisfied with our ignorance of what? what is supposed to change? what 'exlusive' declarations? and yes, you are debasing this song, because it used to make me happy, now it just makes me think of dorak and all of the other pseudo-intellectuals i have had to listen to in my lifetime and gives me a headache (metaphorically)! and the damn song was in my head all day. sorry, i must be harboring a bunch of pent up aggression. actually, i'm sure of it.
@hilarids It's ridiculous to suggest that I have any influence or control over your processes. You make your own decisions, and if you're feeling disaffected that's something you have to sort out with yourself. Continue to insult me and belie the discussion with Campbell's rhetoric, if that makes you feel better. I really don't care. But you're repsonsible for your feelings and opinions, not me.
In my first response I'd asked if you were familiar with the term 'passive aggressive'. Read up.
@DorakoftheHillPeople while that is true, i dont think its fair to single out Ben here, where many bands are just as biased as ben weasel is, usually more, as much as i love NOFX, theyve got a lot of real biased songs. and personally i prefer he writes songs that he believes instead of being forced into a political belief because of what punk has classically been.
@DoMiNoRiX Points taken. However, I haven't singled Ben out, I've merely highlighted significant problems invested in this song's meaning. As for bias, everyone has it. I have mine, Ben has his, you have yours. We don't typically like to think in those terms, but you'll find that even the most open-minded individuals will have fixed beliefs or principles. In any case, we can and should critically examine what these are. Always.
@DoMiNoRiX No one can really say that one has a better understanding of the punk ethos than another, as the only certain thing that all punks share is dissent albeit manifest in different ways. Punk has never been substantially more than that, despite whatever nostalgic bullshit some might purport. It's obvious that we disagree with the mainstream, but it's also apparent that we quite often disagree with each other. IMO this is a good thing, as this is how we determine truth value.
@DoMiNoRiX All this being said, my criticism here isn't concerned with the genre-politic, it has to do with whether his propositions are rational. That's all.
First time I heard Screeching Weasel I was 11..stole it off my brother then went to the record store and used Pennys to break the security shit off a shitload and take em..17 fuckin years ago..time flies.
i listened to all the songs you posted and went out and bought this album this is one of my favorrite albums of all time and i only owned it for a few months now lol i missed out on weasle music back in the day but now I can enjoy it Thanks !!!!!!!!!
God damn lol, bands like SW and OP Ivy.. you can't really understand what they're saying, but then you look up the lyrics and realize how insanely insightful they are. It's funny how all the best lyrics come from punk bands full of kids :x.
"We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made!" .......... Albert Einstein
"India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most astrictive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only!".....Mark Twain
"India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all." ....Will Durant
this song cures aids
DiZBlOwZ 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Well i don't like you whiny cronies. Well I can't stand you sellout phonies. Punching women blindly, putting out mainstream radio friendly pop crap since 1993. Stealing the kids' hard earned money. Funding your extended childhood unkindly. Calling it "punk" and underground. What's that sound? You are the corporations. All your hate is what you became. My rights treaded on by you, all we found the same. Ben your legacy makes me want to puke, ben you make me want to puke ice all over you ;)
Sean021122 1 week ago
@poogazer777 sneak attack bitch
bobbyboulders28 1 month ago
the beauty of music is that a musician(s) can say whatever the fuck they want and we can listen or not,agree or disagree or make comments or whatever.youve gone on and on and should have made your point by now.but your point is not physically helping or aiding anybody or anything in the world,after all, its just an opinion,like this song.
deeppoker 1 month ago in playlist random1
This song is good. Period. Punk or whatever you want to say. Don't be a douche about it if you don't like it. more people like it that came to watch it than don't; so piss off if you're going to be a cocksquire about it.
poogazer777 2 months ago
So much arguing here, can't we all just enjoy the gem from SW that has been presented to us?
MrDontcaretube 2 months ago
love weasel, they played this when i saw them in covington. rather disappointing when the entire crowd chanted "I wanna be naked" and they didnt play it :(
208697 4 months ago
Great lyrics, why dont we just all get along with each other?
SkateboardBassguitar 4 months ago
i stand corrected---i know now who OMM is---thought this was a cover song---they do confuse me with thier country biased punk rock songs lol--id still pit to them though
scion6221 4 months ago
My favourite song off that album, though the lyrics and I don't get along that well
HashMagician 4 months ago
And no. This was directed soley at you dorakofthehillpeople.
spencerwill 5 months ago
The diffeerence is I ADMIT that my beliefs are based on faith. You do not ADMIT that yours are also based on faith. And FUCK! It's just a good song from a good band!
spencerwill 5 months ago
It's a song saying that religion has helped people through tough times. You can spout the Bush shit all you want. But there are poor people, who don't have a lot of money or social standings, and they would like to believe there is some justice in the world. You want to shoot down their hopes too? I f you don't believe in a God, that's fine. But don't try to force your ideas on me or others. You don't know that it's not true any more than I KNOW it is true.
spencerwill 5 months ago
@spencerwill If you expect another party to receive notice of a post, you must click 'Reply'.
Firstly, my initial post says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of god. The contention is that reality matters. Secondly, the notion that religion gives poor people a sense of justice is bullshit. It does nothing to change their condition, but instead encourages them to remain obedient, complacent, and wait for a fairy-tale ending after death. Ever wonder who thought that one up? - - cont.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@spencerwill cont --
Thirdly, no one's forcing anything on you. I posted an opinion, but you engaged me. Remember? Ever heard the term 'persecutory delusion'? Google it.
Lastly, you're right in one respect; I can't prove the nonexistence of god. I also can't prove the nonexistence of pixies. In either case, I can't truthfully claim I know these things do not exist. But what you've probably failed to recognize here is that I'm not making a positive claim. You are.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
So it's not good enough to let people believe what they want? You have to silence them and say they are insane and dangerous to the community? Get off your elitest horse!
spencerwill 5 months ago
@spencerwill What the fuck are you talking about? No one has said anything here about silencing anyone, nor has anyone suggested that people of faith are necessarily insane. I'm guessing you're trying to finish an argument begun with some atheist, and decided to drop the thing in front of the first secularly oriented person you came across. Not interested! As for being elitist, you gotta be kidding me. What's more elitist than religion, which invariably loathes to ever be questioned?
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
I have listened to this song since I was a kid and It kills me to see that Ben is a huge Dick.
TheMickDale 6 months ago
@TheMickDale Bens Ben---i wouldnt want him to be any less that himself
scion6221 6 months ago
Comment removed
robotarm 7 months ago
somehow no matter what the world keeps turning somehow we get by without ever learning
GoodAsh999 7 months ago
holy shit man.....i love intellectual punks
vshgvsakj 7 months ago
good song
luckydevil77 7 months ago
Nofx song "Happy Guy" is somewhat on the same subject as this song is.
A part of the lyrics from that song goes
"....He found the word of God could make his life seem less insane
So he shares what he's read, what he understands, it makes
sense to him, it makes perfect sense,
He's never seen the world so clearly..."
It felt like as if they both where on the subject of why religion is somewhat good and needed - in which ever for it might be: Athieism or Hindu or whatever. I just wanted to share.
Zelibat 8 months ago
Atheists should have to listen to this song before spewing their shit all over the web, not all, you know who I'm talking about.
iEatBoneDust 8 months ago
I just listened to a yellow card song that has this exact same drum beat.
i'm not sure what my point is.
somebody help me out?
dustobusto 9 months ago
@dustobusto your a gord
guyahkah 8 months ago
Ya Dorak as i agree with faith and beliefs creating more problems then its worth, i think its more about power or who's in control. I believe its when people are giving too much control and power they start to think they ARE god.
deeppoker 9 months ago in playlist random1
I can honestly say without hyperbole or idiocracy that this is the greatest song ever written.
Divinely inspired
VikingHusker01 10 months ago
if you've ever question beliefs that you hold you're not alone but you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor in the case of christianity and judaism there exist the belief that spiritual matters are enslaved to history the buddhists believe that the functional aspects override the myth while other religions use the literal core to build foundations with see half the world sees the myth as fact while it's seen as a lie by the other half and the simple truth is that it's none of that and
slapbassboy1 10 months ago
I respect Ben, but his religious bias is showing here. He opines, "science and religion are not mutually exclusive", which may be true. However, it may also be untrue. Science is not an axiomatic system, whereas religion is, so it would depend on the religion. In the context of orthodoxies that inc. creationism, Ben is quite obviously wrong. He tries to rationalize faith and suggests "it doesn't matter if it's real or not". IMO, worldviews not based in reality are dangerous (ie Bush). It matters
DorakoftheHillPeople 10 months ago 37
@DorakoftheHillPeople
No, it doesnt matter if its real or not. Those people would do the same shit they do now without religion. Nothing is in and of itself good or bad.
bambam669 8 months ago
@bambam669 It matters. Once one accedes to a series of baseless and irrational conclusions, they've predisposed themselves to pretty much any potentiality. All that's needed is a bit of rationalization. To paraphrase Weinberg, with or without religion, you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. No 'thing' is in and of itself good or bad, but the same can't be said for ideas. That's why we challenge them.
DorakoftheHillPeople 8 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople
There is no good or bad, those are just words. Morality is completely sucjective and can in no way be gauged the same way by any individual. If it weren't religion they would find another cause to get behind.
bambam669 8 months ago
@bambam669 That sort of post-modernist relativism is too far-reaching and it simply isn't valid in a mutual, reciprocal reality. I agree that morality is subjective, but ethics are not. As for 'cause', the issue isn't how shitheads might rationalize their predacious behaviour - which you seem to be arguing - it's how the perspectives of otherwise ethical people can be distorted. Religion, for example, ignores humanistic ethics in deference to esoteric notions of 'sin' and 'righteousness'.
DorakoftheHillPeople 8 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople
Where exactly do you think ethics come from?...........PEOPLE! People that are subjective, so spare me the long response that. And it doesnt matter.Most people aren't actually religious. In fact if you opened your eyes you would see it holds little sway in western society. It's been replaced by commerce and reality television, just as that can be replaced. Religion, Countries, ideas in general are just symptoms of a sickness.
bambam669 8 months ago
@bambam669 Your response is testimony to my assertion that your perspective on moral relativism is far too broad. Take the time to educate yourself on the subject of ethics, how it's distinct from morality, and hopefully you'll see the problems invested in your argument. As for 'religion holds little sway in western society', the majority still profess belief and it's influence is apparent. As for consumerism, nationalism, etc, these are extensions of religious thinking. So agreed on last point.
DorakoftheHillPeople 8 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople
I'm done, you obviously don't have a personal perspective on any of this. You read wordy books and steal half assed ideas about ethics and morals.
bambam669 8 months ago
@bambam669 "Wordy books" - bambam669
Really?
Personal perspective? I fail to see how your posts reflect a more or less personal perspective than my own. It's apparent you've projected your personality (ie, caps, exclamation marks, insults, failure to rebut), but that isn't the same thing. I think what you really mean is singular intuitive perspective; the cop-out that opinionated, intellectual adolescents use to avoid having to expend energy on educating themselves.
DorakoftheHillPeople 8 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople
Ethics: The MORAL correctness of specified conduct. Crap you're dumb.
bambam669 7 months ago
@bambam669 Was your petulant outburst intended to make a point? I suspect not as clearly you're still clueless as to the distinction. This is 101 stuff kid; I'd have thought a moral nihilist like yourself would be acquainted with this shit by now. Are you waiting for it to come out on blu-ray?
DorakoftheHillPeople 7 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople
,
Kid? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? It was just the definition. I was trying to save you the time of having to look it up, being as you don't seem to know what a dictionary is. I love how you do go on though. It would seem that you have diarrhea of the mouth and constipationof the brain. You hide behind ideas that aren't your own because you can't think for yourself, I understand. Not everybody can have a clue.
bambam669 7 months ago
@bambam669 Who am I talking to? The kid adverse to "wordy books" and oblivious to basic philosophical concepts. In any case, I think looking up dictionary references is a great first step. Now if you could just get someone to help you with meaning and context. Would you like some hints, or do you prefer the autodidactic nightmare you're creating for yourself?
In consideration of your last few posts, I think the terms 'ad hominem' and 'psychological projection' might also interest you.
DorakoftheHillPeople 7 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople
Your "philosophical concepts" are little more than a mental circle jerk. " Look at me! I can spout off some jibberish some jerkoff wrote that I don't have anypersonal connection to!" That's all I'm hearing from you. That and dick in th mouth. I'm sure you read philosophy. I was into it myself when I was 18. Then I realized that it was a HUGE WASTE OF FUCKING TIME.......kinda like you and this banter..............So in closing, go fuck yourself.
bambam669 7 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople...and somehow no matter what, the world's keeps turning ;)
RepeaterMan 7 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople I am an atheist, but I can respect certain aspects of religion. Even if its not true, if the person thinks it is and helps them get through a tough situation, "then it works and it gets the job done"
FreeThinker727 6 months ago
@FreeThinker727 As you'd suggested, tough situations often call for coping mechanisms, emotional and otherwise. Those mechanisms/strategies are available to everyone, irrespective of faith. But the sort of fatalism and lack of self-reliance that religion inspires is a weakened position, not a strengthened one. So, as for 'getting the job done', I challenge that notion. Consider this: If someone prayed for something and eventually got it, would you say prayer got the job done?
DorakoftheHillPeople 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DorakoftheHillPeople blah blah blah
arnoldaj1974 6 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople calm down its just a cover song
scion6221 6 months ago
@scion6221 Wrong. I have the original album, and Ben is credited as this song's sole songwriter.
DorakoftheHillPeople 6 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople well a search of youtube uncovered this little gem---honestly i dont know who came first but im gunna still call it a badass cover after listening to the song by old Man Markley--search it on youtube
scion6221 5 months ago
@scion6221 Old Man Markley's first album came out in 2011. My Brain Hurts by Schreeching Weasel came out in 1991, 20 years before. You're on the internet, you can find this stuff out for yourself, you know. That's what I did. BTW, this isn't John Lichtenberg, it's his girlfiriend, Robyn Robotron. I'm too lazy to log him out and log myself in to correct you.
johnlichtenberg 5 months ago 2
Respond to this video...ooppsie---they covered SW---i saw more videos---never seen these guys play---dont think i would though--at least they give credit
scion6221 5 months ago
@scion6221 I checked 'em out. More reminiscent of Rank and File rather than SW.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
Comment removed
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids An odd request considering that you're inviting comment. I'm guessing you're offended, but have nothing substantive to say.
Are you familiar with the term 'passive aggressive'?
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople nope, i'm not offended. i just think this kind of youtube philosophizing is annoying. okay a little offensive; precisely because nothing of substance is ever said. i was just trying to listen to a screeching weasel song, and your dimestore intellectualism gave me a headache. but i guess you're right, not every religious view is compatible with every scientific view... very deep... oh and religion and bush bad... anyway, sorry for the 'ad hominem' attack...
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids I have no control over what you read, the inferences you make, or your physiology. As to the charge of dimestore intellectualism, thats ironic considering Bens fixation with Catholicism via Campbell. What else would you expect? In less than 500 characters, my original post challenged the idea that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and I further suggested that mystical worldviews are potentially quite dangerous. Fine if you dont agree, but sarcasm simply isnt necessary.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople cmon, you didn't challenge anything. science and religion ARE NOT mutually exclusive. i.e. one can hold both religious and scientific views without contradiction. you are right though: dangerous viewpoints are potentially dangerous. "it doesn't matter if it's real or not" because the function of myth is metaphor. the 'truth' expressed by metaphor can be communicated in a fiction.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids 'ARE NOT' within this context is an exclusive statement, and you and I had already agreed that simply isnt accurate. As I'd said in my original post, it may be true, but it may also be untrue. You can pigeon-hole the point, or you can be rational and ackowledge that the statement is flawed. As for myth as metaphor, there are several potential problems with that view, but more directly that point mischaracterizes the lyric which allows for literal transmission of any idea.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople your argument seems to be this: some scientific and religious views are incompatible, therefore science and religion are mutually exclusive. do you see why the conclusion does not follow? as for myth as metaphor, what are the 'potential' problems? and please explain how i mischaracterize the lyric "But you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor". i do apologize for insulting you though. it's not you that i have a problem with, it's what you (mis)represent.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids You are inferring too far; that is your conclusion, not mine. I never said that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Im saying that the assertion that science and religion are not mutually exclusive is not accurate. The problem with myth as metaphor in the context of the song should be apparent. The example he cites is one of a personage with a reliance on literal belief. Not metaphorical. This is a typical apologist tact. Masked man fallacy?
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople now we're getting into the mud aren't we. this is very confusing. it is not the case that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, yet it is not the case that science and religion are mutually exclusive. what gives you the idea that this 'personage' relies on literal belief? in what? and perhaps you can explain the masked man fallacy and its relevance here. why not 'unmask' some of this jargon and speak english, if only for the sake of the unwashed masses?
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids This should not be confusing. The point is you cant make any exlusive declaration concerning religion without first describing what is invested in the term. In the song, for instance, he alludes to religion and faith as somehow being synonomous. Hence, the fallacy. Having your cake and eating it too, etc.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople good, now i think i understand. you are saying that science and FAITH are mutually exclusive. i suppose the idea would be that scientific method requires us to make empirically testable hypotheses and submit them to experiment, while faith, in opposition, is the acceptance of beliefs without evidence. in this example maybe the woman believes something like "whatever happens, i'm ok". but isn't science silent here?
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Yes, generally speaking that is the essence of what I'm saying. As I'd said in my original post, unlike religion (or faith if you will), science is not an axiomatic system. As for the woman's experience, I should point out that even secularly oriented persons such as myself rely on faith to some extent, however the things I have faith in are available to everyone. They are components of our mutual reality, so in some respects I suppose science isn't entirely silent.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople good, so then you agree with the lyric "science and (faith) are not mutually exclusive". and we agree that even secular, rational, (scientific?) people such as yourself rely on faith. but you suggest that 'secular' faith is available to everyone, while 'religious' faith is not? because the things you have faith in are 'real' whereas religious faith involves belief in things that are 'unreal'? please explain.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids No. When we talk about faith, it's important to delineate the term. I have faith in people or processes with which I have direct experience or reasonable expectation, which can be experienced by other people, often in precisely the same way. This sort of faith is contingent on results and varying degrees of probability/predictability, and it isn't limited to secularly oriented people. This can't be earnestly said of faith in mythical characters.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople so you have faith, at least, that the future will continue as the past. but, of course you don't call this "god".
faith in mythical characters... existence?...ability to communicate important messages through metaphor? i'm confused again. and if what you are saying about religious faith being only available to religious people is true, isn't it kinda true by definition?
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Why would I call it god? If you want to lean toward Spinoza I'd probably be somewhat more receptive, but the concept seems entirely unnecessary in any vein. The question of a god's existence seems a silly one, as by definition it/they/he/she isn't falsifiable. The better question is, what value is there in the idea? Within an anthropolgical context, it has some value. Beyond that, it is effectively redundant.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
Comment removed
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids That's it? More pathetic self-promotion? The fact that the points remain unaddressed has not gone unnoticed, neither has your apparent lack of understanding concerning Quine and Carnap. For someone who struggles with basic concepts, you certainly are confident.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
Comment removed
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids As for religious faith, or 'esoteric wisdom', vs truth, I suppose it depends on what you mean by truth. I mean, religions regularly declare truth in and out of existence at will. I suppose I could paraphrase Kant and say that metaphysical questions are not matters of knowledge, but the simpler answer would be that the accumulation of knowledge is a collective enterprise and "truth" should be apparent and available to all. This is true of science. Not religion.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
Comment removed
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Another childish rant? And still no response? I should point out that I've answered every one of your posts and tolerated your petulant, troll-like outbursts, while you have yet to state your position. Is this what constitutes a 'substantive discussion' in your mind? As concerns Kant, I have no trouble accepting that you're not sure. Another example of an emerging pattern.
Lastly, I'd suggest you consider the term "psychological projection'. You wear it very well.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople my position is that philosophical discussions should lead towards greater clarity. the best way i know to achieve this is by making arguments. that is, come up with a set of (simply stated) premises which logically entail a conclusion. then, we can examine the premises. furthermore, stating the names of philosophers, using lots of jargon, and blurting out lists of obscure statements all lead to lesser clarity. but this is a pissing contest, not a discussion. right?
hilarids 5 months ago
hey, i wear everything very well, so i don't doubt it. you should see me in a tux.
hilarids 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople @DorakoftheHillPeople back to the substance though... you claimed something like 'science covers everything', thus leaving no room for faith. i countered that science requires an assumption (an axiom, if you will): that the laws of nature are constant throughout space and time. you don't call your faith in this assumption faith in god. some others do, i think, or at least use the mythical figure of god as a metaphor for the order of the universe.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Note the order of response. Hopefully we can avoid another confused episode.
1. No. My 'claim' was and is readily apparent: science can be applied to everything in the known universe. By this we mean, the natural universe. Definitively. Science does not concern itself with things presumed to occupy a mystical or 'supernatural' realm.
2. No. Thus nothing. Faith is distinct. As for, religiously oriented faith, it is patently inconsistent with the scientific method.
cont.2
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople axioms are 'definitively' not empirically testable claims. there is nothing about the scientific method that says one can not make assumptions that are not empirically testable. if you are claiming that any claim that is not empirically testable is thereby relegated to the realm of the 'mystical' or 'supernatural' or 'nonsense', then again (no i'm not being 'cute') what is the empirical test for this claim? this is a very old problem.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids "axioms are 'definitively' not empirically testable claims"
Well that'd depend on the axiom and the criteria. But yes, it may be that they are not. But it's a moot point as science is not an axiomatic system. This is reserved for disciplines such as mathematics, law, and religion. Science doesn't acknowledge 'absolute' or even 'proof' in the same sense. When science takes the position that something is 'true', what they're saying is it's very close to 99.99% probable. And vice-versa.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@hilarids "there is nothing about the scientific method that says one can not make assumptions that are not empirically testable."
The scientific method is restricted to observable phenomena, and the inferences we make are explicitly delineated, test or no test. The same method is applied to experiential phenomena and so-called anecdotal 'evidence. This isn't a problem. It's a strength. Assumptions mean nothing without the mutual component.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@hilarids cont.2
4. No. Physical 'laws' are contingent upon strictly empirical observation and experimentation, not assumptions. Where they break down (ie, black holes) exceptions are noted, spurring further investigation.
5. I do not have any faith in a god or gods. I recognize that others do, and that some see nature as god. Hence my earlier reference to Spinoza. This was not a philosophical argument, despite your mischaracterization. It was a rejection of same as practicably worthless.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople the fact is that we all make assumptions. both inductive and deductive reasoning require assumptions (and, i imagine you use both (to some extent)). you can argue that your assumptions are more useful than others, but you can't reject others' assumptions based on the fact that they are assumptions (without being hypocritical).
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids "you can argue that your assumptions are more useful than others, but you can't reject others' assumptions based on the fact that they are assumptions"
All reasoning requires first assumptions. My contention is that the extent to which we accede to those assumptions should be contingent upon observation and experience. To liken this apparency to say, the assumption that fairies are real, is ludicrous. I can, and do, accept and/or reject assumptions in probabilistic terms. So do you.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
Comment removed
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople so, science and faith apply to different domains. science to the domain of claims we can submit to empirical testing, faith to the domain of claims that we accept without empirical evidence so that everything doesn't fall apart. it applies to things like god, the constancy of natural law, the axioms of logic, etc. thus, sing it, "science and religion are not mutually exclusive". even if we substitute "faith" for "religion".
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Again, note order of response.
1. No. You're assigning that. I don't agree and have said as much. Religion occupying a 'domain' is a troublesome concept, as the only certain thing the religions of the world share is an imaginary element. I think that it's quite telling that, despite the seemingly infinite latitude this sort of system permits, the vast majority are now extinct. Does this imply that the 'domain' of religion is for the most part a failure?
cont.2
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@hilarids cont.2
2. No. If anything, you've illuminated an argument for the position that science and religion are mutually exclusive. This is something that even I see little value in.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople i feel like we're going around in circles, but i'll try one more time. if i understand you correctly, you seem to be claiming that science does not require any assumption. but usually we think of science as involving inference from the observed to the non-observed (inductive reasoning). and, of course, inductive reasoning (as i have said) requires an assumption that the non-observed will be 'like' the observed in some sense.
hilarids 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople i suppose your claim is that your assumptions are 'reality-based'. but then you need to provide some kind of criterion of reality.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids "but then you need to provide some kind of criterion of reality"
I think you'd earlier stated, "now we're getting into the mud". Consider that your desire to reduce this exchange to a philosophical argument may be why you find this exchange circular.
By reality, we usually mean 'mutual reality'. So, I don't need to provide the criterion, we do. I believe we'd established that some time ago.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople in general, don't science and faith apply to different domains? i don't see any inconsistency in accepting a great number of beliefs on faith (e.g. god is good, i should be nice to people, the external world exists, the law of non-contradiction holds) while still holding that empirical claims require experimental evidence.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Well, I'd have to say no. Science applies to any and every phenomenon in the known universe. Can science also speak to morality, intuition, and the like? I think so. Morality, for example, is an extension of mutual empathy; a product of natural selection. As for consistency, I recognize that a great many people claim to be able to reconcile their religious views with a seperate scientific worldview. But isn't this really just compartmentalizing? IMO these views are not consistent.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople are you saying that only empirically verified beliefs are justified? ok, i'll play. what is the empirical evidence for that statement?
and, so, if morality and intuition are to be explained by natural selection, then wouldn't you have to say "it doesn't matter if its real or not, if it works then it gets the job done" ; )
and, is that just your (unconsidered) opinion that these views are inconsistent, or do you have empirical evidence for that? or at least an argument?
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Cute. The 'empircal evidence' is, I posted it. You may want to play semantics, I don't. I'm quite sure we both have a solid understanding of the terms involved. As for 'getting the job done', either your being cute again or you're unaware that natural selection may also favour comparatively inferior systems. But more directly, coping mechanisms are available to everyone. The addition of religious belief adds nothing; it detracts as it fosters fatalism and a lack of self reliance.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
Comment removed
hilarids 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DorakoftheHillPeople i'm sorry, but this isn't 'semantics'. give me an argument that shows that... nevermind, this is never going to go anywhere is it? disappointing. maybe some day you'll learn some humility and realize that you know a lot less than you think you do. this after all is the central lesson of philosophy. you seem very concerned about religious dogmatism, but secular dogmatism is no better.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids As for what you think I represent, again I'd suggest you're inferring too far. We clearly have different perspectives relative to this song and its contentions, but beyond that, and despite your assignations, not much certain can be said concerning either of us. In any case, neither opinion diminishes my appreciation for this song or Screeching Weasel. As for your repeated insults, those reflect on you. I am unaffected. So, the apology isnt necessary.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople anyhow, i think the point of this song is that myth is a device that humans use to help understand the world and cope with it. also, that myths are not supposed to be 'true' in the 'direct correspondence with reality' kind of way, only metaphorically. also, that amazingly somehow we get along in the world and everything keeps working despite our limitations. none of this seems controversial or 'biased'. quit debasing a good song with interesting lyrics.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids Debasing a good song? It seems to me the point is to provoke thought, not demand agreement. If you think my perspective debases the song, consider that may speak to your preconceptions rather than mine. As to the content, Ben makes some pretty exlusive declarations which would be rather ironic in consideration of your analysis. Dont you think? Myths are untrue, definitively. Accepting them as useful metaphors only entices us to remain satisfied with our ignorance. Nothing changes.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople huh? entices us to remain satisfied with our ignorance of what? what is supposed to change? what 'exlusive' declarations? and yes, you are debasing this song, because it used to make me happy, now it just makes me think of dorak and all of the other pseudo-intellectuals i have had to listen to in my lifetime and gives me a headache (metaphorically)! and the damn song was in my head all day. sorry, i must be harboring a bunch of pent up aggression. actually, i'm sure of it.
hilarids 5 months ago
@hilarids It's ridiculous to suggest that I have any influence or control over your processes. You make your own decisions, and if you're feeling disaffected that's something you have to sort out with yourself. Continue to insult me and belie the discussion with Campbell's rhetoric, if that makes you feel better. I really don't care. But you're repsonsible for your feelings and opinions, not me.
In my first response I'd asked if you were familiar with the term 'passive aggressive'. Read up.
DorakoftheHillPeople 5 months ago
@DorakoftheHillPeople while that is true, i dont think its fair to single out Ben here, where many bands are just as biased as ben weasel is, usually more, as much as i love NOFX, theyve got a lot of real biased songs. and personally i prefer he writes songs that he believes instead of being forced into a political belief because of what punk has classically been.
DoMiNoRiX 4 months ago
@DoMiNoRiX Points taken. However, I haven't singled Ben out, I've merely highlighted significant problems invested in this song's meaning. As for bias, everyone has it. I have mine, Ben has his, you have yours. We don't typically like to think in those terms, but you'll find that even the most open-minded individuals will have fixed beliefs or principles. In any case, we can and should critically examine what these are. Always.
DorakoftheHillPeople 4 months ago
@DoMiNoRiX No one can really say that one has a better understanding of the punk ethos than another, as the only certain thing that all punks share is dissent albeit manifest in different ways. Punk has never been substantially more than that, despite whatever nostalgic bullshit some might purport. It's obvious that we disagree with the mainstream, but it's also apparent that we quite often disagree with each other. IMO this is a good thing, as this is how we determine truth value.
DorakoftheHillPeople 4 months ago
@DoMiNoRiX All this being said, my criticism here isn't concerned with the genre-politic, it has to do with whether his propositions are rational. That's all.
DorakoftheHillPeople 4 months ago
Ben Weasel for prez FTW....
SaintCheetah 10 months ago
SCREECHING WEASEL FTW!!!!
raymarkhamyarsongs 10 months ago
I jerk off to this shit. for real.
poogazer777 11 months ago 6
This really is one of Ben's best.
I also think the Old Man Marcley version holds up well.
roydagger 1 year ago
epic sound epic song epic feeling... great band...NOSECONE PROPHETS on youtube.com.
justinjrpoo 1 year ago
Ben Weasel for President!!!!
cj0481 1 year ago
this song is badass!!!
jadeoutsider1 1 year ago 3
omg i love this song always have
TheElii22 1 year ago 3
Weasel is one of my favorites. Too bad I missed their LA show just recently. I hope they return to southern Cali soon. :hint:
slapbassboy1 1 year ago 3
A song that is as relevant today as the day it was written
JDizzleton1 1 year ago 4
First time I heard Screeching Weasel I was 11..stole it off my brother then went to the record store and used Pennys to break the security shit off a shitload and take em..17 fuckin years ago..time flies.
kidsonmeth 1 year ago 3
FUCKING SEXY XD
socketacount1 1 year ago
i listened to all the songs you posted and went out and bought this album this is one of my favorrite albums of all time and i only owned it for a few months now lol i missed out on weasle music back in the day but now I can enjoy it Thanks !!!!!!!!!
zombieturd7 1 year ago 3
God damn lol, bands like SW and OP Ivy.. you can't really understand what they're saying, but then you look up the lyrics and realize how insanely insightful they are. It's funny how all the best lyrics come from punk bands full of kids :x.
getamp3d 1 year ago 4
@getamp3d The Partisanslyrics are outstanding and those guys were 16, 17, 18
me55ina 1 year ago 2
amazing song!! one of the best sw songs!
rock5719 1 year ago
this is my fav. SW song [=
MsSkEAZE 1 year ago
I love it! :D
GeorgeyBoy13 1 year ago
Live its cool as shit
Tirius69 1 year ago
Comment removed
wonderwoman7861 1 year ago
the lyrics to this song are beautiful...
crustychi666 2 years ago
unlike India!
bets86 2 years ago
I've heard the Indian countryside is gorgeous... I dont know about the overcrouded cities tho...
crustychi666 2 years ago
@crustychi666 They really are
thekalousound 1 year ago
@byobsoad450 the new one?
fuzballstud 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
India, Oh Land of Liberty.
MonkeyMagics 2 years ago
what does the song have do do with india?
crustychi666 2 years ago
god bless india
Kontagious 2 years ago
One of my favorite Screeching Weasel songs for sure.
arthurspilling 2 years ago 13
amazing song
dtwife 3 years ago
go sri lanka cricket team!
bets86 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rock on Mother India
meatcannon 3 years ago
why are you talking about India?
punkCDsampler 3 years ago 9
@punkCDsampler India is a great place to visit
lojoho 1 year ago 2
ROCK ON!
RockstarRacc00n 2 years ago
dude stfu
QuoteMe93 2 years ago
Mother India! For Great Justice!
RockstarRacc00n 2 years ago
what does this song have to do with india? although i dont doubt india is awesome.
crustychi666 2 years ago
Comment removed
meatcannon 3 years ago
"We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made!" .......... Albert Einstein
meatcannon 3 years ago
"India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most astrictive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only!".....Mark Twain
meatcannon 3 years ago
"India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all." ....Will Durant
meatcannon 3 years ago
the lyrics are real great!
Skanking2Ska 3 years ago 3
THE best Screeching Weasel song.
crassisdead 3 years ago 34
@crassisdead so true :) i still remember the first time listening 2 this song, the first is always the best :)
lagann37 1 year ago 5
@crassisdead Amen
Tatermcspud 1 year ago