Sisyphus

Obviously your own classical education has a gaping hole if you didn't catch Pangloss' reference.

He's already procreated, and so he's ineligible. The point is they have to prevent themselves from passing on their genes by killing or sterilizing themselves via some stupid act. No. The premise is that the winner has to have improved the gene pool by removing himself from it. Wiping out the gene pool entirely is not an improvement.

You would lose that bet, if I remember correctly. Another problem with a "vacuum balloon" is that it just doesn't give you much for your trouble. Compared with hydrogen, you have the "cost" of maintaining that pressure differential, with not much more buoyancy. Hydrogen is already only about 1/14th as dense as air, and so even disregarding the weight of the "balloon" itself, you're already getting only about a 7% increase in lift by using vacuum. Even if the two balloons weigh the same that decreases the difference farther to probably around 1-3% (I'm just guesstimating). So unless you can make a container that maintains its volume against 1 atmosphere that weighs less than a couple percent more than a balloon, you haven't gained anything.

I've never heard anyone hold either of the first two opinions. Also, no culture has anything close to an actually homogenized education system, and that wouldn't matter anyway, since its the sum of life experiences that matters, not just what you hear sitting in a classroom. And that is much too subtle to predict, let alone "homogenize," hence identical twins raised in the same family having different IQs. In answer to the second question, the studies I've heard of seem to give nature and nurture roughly equal weight. Upbringing seems to matter more in youth, but it gradually grows less important the older you get.

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "moral attitude?" Would another way of asking it be, is globalization good or bad, overall?

I would have to know more facts of the case to give a definite opinion. I will say that merely picketing outside a funeral and harassing people is not valid grounds for suing, nor should it be. The fact that they won makes me suspect there's more to it than that, but it's entirely possible the law was stretched to punish the greatly deserving, which would be unfortunate if not exactly sad. Also, "professional trolls" is apt. And what trolls and religious nutjobs (which is also apt) have in common is that they both love and thrive on persecution. So they're actually probably loving this. Another reason this is unfortunate.

But it's not a force of its own, nor is there any mechanism in place by which it could be one. So I disagree that it's meant to symbolize "the UN" as an entity with military force behind it. It would be more apt, I think, to say it symbolizes that there is a consensus among the community of nations in agreement with their actions. Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do. And I believe it's impossible to speak that broadly about every conceivable situation. Yes, sometimes we are better off staying out of it, and sometimes we are better off getting involved. History has provided plenty of examples of both. Again, of course there are pros and cons to any policy, in any situation. I disagree with the analogy to free speech. There, it is certainly the case that "to then cherry pick exceptions is to undermine the value and reliability of principle." And with free speech, that's critical, for reasons we need not debate. But what is the principle that you're defending here? What is the point of sticking to the "principle" of non-intervention, if not for pragmatic or moral reasons? Why would I want to live in a society that held that particular principle sacred? Because it doesn't go against anything in the Constitution? I'm not sure what you want me to say... Actually, I agree, and contrary to what you may think, I'm not claiming any action we've taken has been black and white, good and evil. But non-controversial? Well... yes. And that's important, because it indicates near-universal consensus. I'm ok with the idea that if most of the world feels you need to be stopped out of collective self-preservation, then they have a forum for discussing it and agreed upon (again, by consensus) rules for maybe doing something about it. I understand that that's not very satisfying from the perspective of an inflexible idealist who thinks things should be black and white, but hey, it works for Wikipedia.

The linkage would be between GW and hurricane intensity, though, not frequency. And it would be a long, gradual increase, much less than the typical variations from year to year. I imagine you would need a decades-long sample to actually see anything.

So basically anything that's been used to make weapons would qualify? Isn't that almost anything? Also, isn't that very subjective? Nuclear weapons probably prevented world war 3, for example.

No, it's an international symbol that those troops are on a UN-related mission. US forces are deployed by the US. There's nothing in the Constitution that says our armed forces can't be deployed in cooperation with other sovereign nations, or even that they can't be obliged to as part of the conditions of a treaty ratified by Congress. That is not the case with the UN, where no nation is obliged to participate in any particular operation, incidentally, but it could be. In fact, the United States has been doing just that since before there even was a Constitution, and would not exist without such cooperation. (I'm talking about French assistance in the Revolutionary War, in case that's not clear.) That's a valid position. (But it's not a valid Constitutional argument.) But is coming to the assistance of another nation that asks for assistance really no better than imperialism? Were Britain and France being imperialists in obliging themselves to come to Poland's defense in WW2? Could not a great deal of trouble been avoided if more nations had similarly obliged themselves, even in spirit if not active treaty? Was every member of the UN somehow collectively being an imperialist entity in containing the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War?

So it's total bunk to tie climate change to any particular variable, and it's been shown that solar variability is the cause of the warming? Riiight...

Perceived internally caused events. In other words, just what I describe. Kant thought it was impossible not to think of yourself as a being with free will, but that it was also logically impossible to deny absolute determinism. Hence the division between subjective and objective reality. It is the misplaced attempt to unify the two that leads to, quite literally, nonsense.

Yes, I believe the UN has been spectacularly effective, and I believe that most of the problems people have with it stem from a misunderstanding of its mandate. The UN was founded following World War II largely to prevent that type of conflict from ever happening again by harnessing the unprecedented spirit of global cooperation which resulted from that war. It was a means for nations large and small alike to meet openly and discuss their common problems. It was NEVER supposed to usurp sovereignty of any nation. The question, "should they have control of US military forces" doesn't even make sense. "They" are us, we are them. And collectively, "they" never asked for control of anyone's military. Those blue helmets do NOT represent a "UN army." They represent nations deploying forces as part of agreements reached under the framework of the UN. That's ALL. So what has the UN accomplished? A great, great deal, I believe, although its very nature makes it difficult to quantify. It withstood a great test of its original purpose admirably early on, in the Korean War. I think any South Korean would look at you like a crazy person if you called the UN "useless." It is that precedent and the spirit behind it, I believe, which has done such great service to the entire world. It is almost inconceivable, now, that two powerful nations would go to war with one another. Why? Because there really is a "global community" now, a community that could never have happened had not all the great powers of the world made a serious commitment to cosmopolitan ideals after seeing the what its opposite could cause in two world wars. We have our differences, yes, and we certainly have powerful competitors, but we don't have powerful enemies. And by "we" I don't just mean the United States, I mean the community of all responsible nations, The U.S., the EU, etc. You would have to be very blind to history not to see just how miraculous it is that such a "we" even exists. Do we seriously want to turn our backs on that, just because for the moment we have the strength to push anyone else around on our own?

And yet an organization of nations has proved surprising effective at preventing wars and promoting global prosperity. Hmm. Perhaps your analogy is flawed.

Haha, you're right. I didn't even read the post, I just kneejerked it because that particular false dichotomy is posed all the time, which ironically is probably what is inspiring yourdad. ANYWAY, in response to the what the OP actually says, I have to say that I disagree. I agree that the only options are deterministic or random, whatever the mechanism of consciousness might be. (I'd also even add that we still only have these same two options even if you go to non-materialistic mechanisms, like an immaterial "soul.") I also agree that determinism and free will are not at all opposed. Where I disagree is with your assertion that we need determinism for free will. To me, free will is simply being conscious of making a choice and exerting one's will in accordance with that choice. I am so conscious, and so free will exists. Period. Whether, ultimately, the mechanism of that choice is deterministic or random does not change the fact that it is a choice, or that I am conscious. And yes, bascule, there are many (well, most) who would disagree with my definition of free will, and so in that sense it is ultimately just semantic quibbling. On the other hand, however, I would argue that the majority of those who would disagree are simply wrong, inasmuch as they actually agree with me without realizing it. The experience they are referring to when they say "free will" is nothing more than what I mean when I say it, but they tend to insist on "absolute metaphysical free will," which is an empty phrase with no cognitive correspondence.

I think perhaps you guys misunderstand the purpose of the UN. It's not there to "do" anything as an entity in itself. It's an organization of sovereign nations designed to help them do things together and work out their differences openly in a formal setting.

Another one for false dichotomy. And an early lead for the write-in!

I think Klaynos is right. You simply couldn't get that alignment, because the need for closed loops would force pole switching all over the place. The overall effect would be non-magnetic.

1) Obviously it hurts quite a bit, since by definition it is more about beating the other side than accomplishing anything positive. If you oppose something because of who said it, you're pretty much guaranteeing you won't accomplish anything, because for that you need consensus. That said, partisans - even unreasonable and inflexible partisans - do have a role, I think. Basically, they guarantee diversity of views (if no matter what I say, you argue the opposite, at least we'll have two opinions!), they force our leaders to work to keep the public on their side, and they prevent anyone from becoming too powerful. It's the same principle, really, as competition in a free market, or in the value of cultural diversity. If, for example, there is no religious majority, but only a weak plurality, nobody can establish a theocracy. Similarly in politics (or in science, or any number of things), controversy prevents complacency and thus promotes progress. Of course, their function doesn't work if everyone is a partisan, because then there is nobody to win over, and no real discourse in which to inject their views. The ideal balance, I suppose would be a majority of open-minded, consensus-seeking "synthesizers," while still maintaining a healthy and diverse crop of inflexible idealogues. We should listen to our staunch partisans, we just should just try not to elect them. 2) I think it's very bad, but I don't think it's getting worse. Bitter, entrenched partisanship reached a peak around he 2004 elections, I think, and now it's not really getting worse, if only because it can't without an actual civil war. I'm optimistically guessing that people are starting to get tired of it, after seeing just how long not seeking common ground has gotten us nowhere. Interestingly, I think Bush's spectacular unpopularity is both a cause and an effect of this, since to most people he has come to represent (accurately, I believe) just that kind of, inflexible, black and white, why should I listen to you if I already know you're wrong kind of attitude. 3) Yup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzrUD-5hf1A I know conspiracy wackos are a hobby of some people here, so I thought I'd share. These particular wackos apparently consider this a victory of some kind.

Never heard of it.

The way I see it, we do anthropomorphize them, yeah, but then, they do the same to us. Well, not the same, but they think of us the same way they would think of a dominant member of their "pack." It's not the same as how humans relate, but it's not totally different, either. I think it's at least analogous to things like loyalty and friendship (albeit not quite the same as we experience those things) and not purely stomach-driven.

Genetics?

You weren't called a snob because of your intellectual skills, you were called a snob because you are one. "The thanks I get for trying to enlighten them." Ass. And yes, I've been called an intellectual snob (or something equivalent) lots of times. To be fair, though, I am one in a lot of ways. I went to the (intellectually) snobbiest school in America. No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to hide the amusement from my voice when I think somebody is being stupid or pretentious. And I'm ridiculously hard to impress. That's just who I am. Doesn't mean I'm not a nice guy...

Dunno why this is in the politics forum, exactly, but anyway, I'll withhold judgment until I know more. The article didn't say whether his opinion is based on research or what. It makes it sound like he thinks black people are stupid because Africa is messed up and he's had some difficult employees. If that's in fact the case, then yeah, it's just racism. Actually, I do have an inkling why it's in this forum. You didn't hear about it from Rush Limbaugh (like I did), did you? The "this guy, who apparently won a nobel prize!" part made me laugh. Who hasn't heard of Watson and Crick?