I got lazy on the title, that is the video one. The best bar fight I ever saw was outside of a Korean bar in Harker Heights, Texas back in the 90's. I had exited the bar next to it with some friends when we saw the bouncers toss out two elderly Korean gentlemen in full suits. I would guess they were at least 50 or so.

Anyway, once they were outside, the bouncers left and these two guys proceeded to get into a full fledged Tae Kwon Do (or maybe Hap Ki Do, I don't think it was that though because it had a lot of power kicks) fight. I mean they were going at it, and I mean HARD. Much more contact than in any of the TKD matches I had been in at tournaments. After about a minute of not landing a solid hit, they stopped and mutually allowed one another to remove their suit jackets. Then back to the fray. They did get a few kicks in and got a bit bloody, but that is when the bouncers returned, apparently with their WIVES.

Hilarity ensued, because both wives basically glanced at one another and then waded into the fracas. They each started slapping and kicking on their husband, screaming at them. I don't speak Korean, but you could tell by the tone they were dressing them down hardcore. The fight stopped and two bloody, formerly distinguished looking guys looked like a couple of kids who had really torqued off their mom. I was dying off to the side from laughter. I swear if camera phones had existed back then it would have been an instance classic.

More often than not it's just used as a nonsense word. See this 17C example for instance:

Lavender's blue, dilly dilly, lavender's green,
When I am king, dilly dilly, you shall be queen:
Who told you so, dilly dilly, who told you so?
'Twas mine own heart, dilly dilly, that told me so.
Call up your men, dilly dilly, set them to work,
Some with a rake, dilly dilly, some with a fork;
Some to make hay, dilly dilly, some to thresh corn,
Whilst you and I, dilly dilly, keep ourselves warm.

If you should die, dilly dilly, as it may hap,
You shall be buried, dilly dilly, under the tap;
Who told you so, dilly dilly, pray tell me why?
That you might drink, dilly dilly, when you are dry.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

Post more videos, and pop less spit? 76 more star points before ya trade-in that rusty sheriff's badge for a gold one-Find content to share and prattle-on less may-haps?? JUST a suggestion (he offers, sardonically)....*COUGH!

@VoodooV.....won't stand-by and let you or other internet social-dysfunctionals take another shit on yet another account. Yourself and chicco (with whom your personal issues have rung-true with often as evidenced in the mechanized comment-up-votes) need to step the fuck back from the baiting-and-blathering and get a room may-haps??

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

This happed a couple of years ago during Europs NLB championship game. We have two other video's with slightly different angles/cuts of this already (Both sifted 2 years 3 months 1 week ago):

http://videosift.com/video/Don-t-Celebrate-Too-Early

http://videosift.com/video/NLB-League-Final-from-heaven-to-hell-in-0-5sec

I would consider this one to be a dupe of the second one, but they are not exactly the same. Do we need three videos that are only slightly different here?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

They did lose a few thousand people and a couple of tall buildings. I think this gives them the right to gather and sing and do whatever they need to do to mark closure of an issue that is deeply personal to them.


That would be the case if this event did offer closure but it dos not at all in the slightest. 911 was used as a tool for the american right + military industry. to expand its activities that were the route cause for 911 in the first place bin laden and the actual 3k deaths caused by the planes on 911 are totally negligible compared to the harm the us government inflicts on its own people and people around the world .



true closure would come in the form of america making changes to its foreign policy maybe america reducing its dependency on foreign oil ( although thats not the sole motivation i don't think for what happed after 911)

People should be out in the streets celerbraiting when an event happens that actually signals a tangibal benefit to mankind or a benefit to there individual lives. people who think binladan being dead is going to have a benefit to them in terms of national security or there day to day activities are deluded.

These people in the street seem to think binladan is some sort of commander and chief Hitler type but he is not at all.

people just need to educate them selfs and wealth needs to be evenly spred so they can do that.

Ha, I was just thinking the same thing. Did someone hijack your account? Are you okay?

This was a really nice one. Your other videos are great too, but it's good to throw your audience off every once in a while. Keeps us on our toes.

>> ^AdrianBlack:

Hap...py? What is this channel?

Hap...py? What is this channel?

Damn statist pigs. This is statist what statist hap-statist-pens when statist citizens let statist cops exist.