They were a middle of the road English band trying to sound west coast. The 1960s had MANY MANY experimental/progressive rock bands. Beatles of course were the most popular. This does not make them pioneers at all.
The ENGINEERS at London's Abbey Road Studios helped perfect the 4 track recording process. THAT'S IT.

Implying music and other artists wouldn't exist today is plainly beatle fever.

The 1960s was a "revolution" for everything. Lots were changing. The beatles were just on the pop charts / teenage magazines.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy their work, and grew up with lots of their 45s and 33s playing in my house.

Hell even the kid at the beginning of the clip said it right.
"you can't really hate the beatles, or like you'll ..... get killed"

a hippy english pop group from the 1960s =/= revolution pioneers

Hmm. Stupid comments and ignorance.

Ok try this: When, with approval of the current administration in collusion with all parties interested and motivated to disarm anyone who they deem unfit or unauthorized I am broadcast an inane, retarded, insulting, dishonest, video propaganda piece complete with a minlktoast, pencil-necked freak speaking for "THE CHILDREN" and a drunk-at-noon VP with a track record of bullshit longer than a freight train, my common-sense and fundamental understanding of the nature of human beings kicks-in, and I begin to make perfect sense to similar beings and sound like a raving sociopath to the those so programmed through imprint, conditioning, and environment.

Again, seek professional help if you are unable make the leap on your own.

Then, unsurprisingly, you go on to call Colin Powell a 'nigger' in your next paragraph"

No sir, I did not. Go look up the term "house nigger" and "uncle Tom" and re-read my short rant in the context in which it was written and stop making "racism" the center of what you imagine my motivation. Colin Powell's skin color has very little to do with his track record and his actions in service to his handlers read like a character out of Stowe's fiction.

strawman argument.

The difference between guns and other weapons is the ease of which they can be used. Just aim and fire. It's easier to detach oneself when you just have to pull a trigger. The other factor is the ease of which it's possible to kill mass amounts of people without opposition.

whereas with bladed weapons and bludgeons, you tend to have to really get in close and personal and probably use multiple strikes in order to accomplish the deed. The odds of killing multiple people without some form of opposition is much lower as well.

@bareboards2 pretty much said it. you have to right to have a gun, but a gun is also a responsibility. A responsibility that most people seem to ignore. You really have to look at the track record too. How much good have firearms done domestically vs how much harm they've done domestically. Yes, I'm fully aware of many anecdotal stories people have about someone with a gun preventing something bad from happening, but that tends to be the exception, not the rule. Guns tend to cause problems, not solve them.

No one is saying that the right someone with a gun couldn't do good. That's just not how it tends to go down on average.

No rational person is arguing for the banning of firearms (except for maybe assault weapons) but there is a very rational and sensible argument for increased scrutiny and increased safeguards.

Poor Thomas Midgley, his track record just keeps on getting worse and worse.

If you want to flesh out this vague and incomplete argument, I'll listen. Not to dash your violent fantasies, but history shows that gun fans are more likely to be the tyrants than to stop them.

Hitler deregulated guns and lowered the age at which one could own a gun. White conservative gun owners didn’t stand up to Hitler, they supported him. Many fought and died in defense of tyranny. It took the allied forces to liberate Germany.

White conservative gun owners did not stand up to tyranny in the pre-civil war American South either. Many fought and died in support of tyranny. Again, it was an outside army that had to come in and liberate the south.

Not a great track record.

When NRA/Tea Party types talk about violently overthrowing the government, that is tyrant talk.

Infidelity isn't a big deal to swingers, but I doubt swingers would agree sex is "no big deal" as they define themselves by it.

This guy think he's cutting edge--labeling morality as "absolutist"--when it's all been tried and done before. Arranged marriage actually has a better track record than the newer kind.

Where society is failing is rewarding irresponsible behavior.

Well, don't forget about peer review. That's the crucial thing that sets science apart from religion. No hypothesis becomes a theory until it's been road tested like a motherfucker. Since religion relies on "revealed wisdom," it can't possibly hope to keep up.

For instance, did you know that Galileo might have been wronged back in 1632 when he was ordered to stand trial in Rome for heresy?...and that this was revealed to the Pope...in 1992??

That's correct, it took 360 years for the Vatican to admit that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. Granted, there wasn't a lot of peer review happening in 1632...but it did happen eventually. More importantly, it happened in spite of religion, not because of it.

So with religion's impressive track record of getting it wrong, and more impressive foot-dragging, why should they be the authority about the age of the cosmos? Or condom use? Or homosexuality? They have proven themselves quite unable to do so.

Science is the one with the winning track record, fuckers.

@xxovercastxx

That's not a proof, that's just some givens and a conclusion and one of the givens is, itself, in need of proof.

Well, you can demonstrate it is a false premise by demonstrating one thing you know for certain, and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you believe?

I formulated no dichotomy, I am simply saying that God is not an acceptable base for an argument because God still needs to be established. In the same way that "Without God you can't know anything" needs to be substantiated before it can be used as a given in a proof, God also needs to be substantiated before I'll accept arguments that presuppose his existence.

The purpose of the argument is to establish the existence of God.

Science has a track record of working; that's where my trust in that method comes from. I would never describe it as having unlimited power; unlimited potential, perhaps, but saying science is omnipotent doesn't even feel grammatically correct to me, let alone agreeable. In fact, I find science rather inefficient since we have to spend so much time trying to disprove things we think are true, but it's the best method we've got for producing useable, repeatable results.

There is no idol; I do not worship anyone or any thing.

How do you know the methods of science will be valid tomorrow?

That's not a proof, that's just some givens and a conclusion and one of the givens is, itself, in need of proof.

I formulated no dichotomy, I am simply saying that God is not an acceptable base for an argument because God still needs to be established. In the same way that "Without God you can't know anything" needs to be substantiated before it can be used as a given in a proof, God also needs to be substantiated before I'll accept arguments that presuppose his existence.

Science has a track record of working; that's where my trust in that method comes from. I would never describe it as having unlimited power; unlimited potential, perhaps, but saying science is omnipotent doesn't even feel grammatically correct to me, let alone agreeable. In fact, I find science rather inefficient since we have to spend so much time trying to disprove things we think are true, but it's the best method we've got for producing useable, repeatable results.

There is no idol; I do not worship anyone or any thing.

My justification is simply that it has a good track record. If you are really trying to say that I am unreasonable to assume that all physical laws will remain more or less unchanged for the next five seconds then you demonstrate your own stupidity.

The main problem with your justification is that it is logically fallacious. You're still using circular reasoning. Your evidence that the future will be like the past is the past. Is it correct reasoning to use logical fallacies?

You haven't demonstrated that we need to know anything with absolute certainty. Is there any practical value to it?

Can you show me one instance where knowing that something has been the case in every conceivable instance since the dawn of time is just too vague for you?

Things seem to hum along just fine under the crazy assumption that breathing in and out is the way to go.

Well, the thing is, we live in a world of certainty, not uncertainty. What this means is that you are living a double life of sorts. You are uncertain about everything in theory, but of course you never live that way in practice; you expect everything to continue as it has from the beginning of the Creation. You expect that when you jump up you will come back down again. You expect when you say the words "juniper tree" that the sound waves will carry those words to the other persons ear, and they, using universal rules of logic, will comprehend what you're talking about. You are living according to the ideals of a Christian worldview, but simultaneously denying it with your atheism.

Did you know, for instance, that the idea in science of nature being lawfully ordered is a Christian one? It was supposed by 12 century Christians who believed that the Universe was governed by Gods laws, and that we could suss out these universal laws by investigating secondary causes. Here is some of the history of all of that:

http://bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm#introduction

So this world of certainty we live in is based in no small way off of Christian ideals and principles. You could not actually justify any of it unless you invoke an omnipotent God who created and maintains all of these things, and will continue to do so. So, the argument is the impossibility of the contrary, which is not only a denial of the world of certainty that we live in, but also the loss of any basis for rational thought.

My justification is simply that it has a good track record. If you are really trying to say that I am unreasonable to assume that all physical laws will remain more or less unchanged for the next five seconds then you demonstrate your own stupidity.

You haven't demonstrated that we need to know anything with absolute certainty. Is there any practical value to it?

Can you show me one instance where knowing that something has been the case in every conceivable instance since the dawn of time is just too vague for you?

Things seem to hum along just fine under the crazy assumption that breathing in and out is the way to go.

Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty.

Are you absolutely certain about that?

It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

The premise is that you have no ground for any knowledge claim, and that without God it is impossible to prove anything. If this is a false premise, make a knowledge claim and tell me your grounds for it outside of God.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes.

Saying your senses prove your senses is circular reasoning in any sense of the term.

And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

And why should those predictions be useful even 5 seconds from now? You're placing your faith in something you can't justify. What is the basis for unchanging, universal, immaterial laws in your worldview? Where do you get those outside of God?

Hey shiny blurry, you need to learn how to read. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty. It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes. And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

Yes, I would go peacefully. I would film the encounter. I would be respectful. I would tell the officers how they are violating my rights. I would contact media outlets, maybe become an activist and I would certainly have my day in court - maybe the ACLU or some similar organization will help.

I'm not sure what sort of Rambo delusions you have, but reality has long shown that any of the above options have a better (admittedly imperfect) track-record of protecting the rights of citizens.

Again, other than a few rare outlyers, the vast majority of people that decide to take up arms against the state end up dead or in jail. Nothing gets solved, public opinion typically favors any fallen officers, and your local SWAT team has just a little more incentive to buy bigger guns.

But go ahead, Rambo, come out guns a'blazin and let me know how that goes for ya.




>> ^Buck:


So if they come for you for real or imagined crimes you will go peacefully. Just like a typical sheep.