Sisyphus

It is essentially true that people are motivated by desires, which by definition is some sort of pursuit of pleasure, of various degrees of abstraction. Fine. That is what "free will" is - you do something because you want to. Reason, then, is a tool of desire, which through its use can affect the desires themselves, by examining consequences and habituating its more immediate desires to be in more accord with those that will lead to "better" pleasures later on. An emotional person is one whose desires and will have been little affected by use of reason. But why say "emotion is master?" It's just one step in the chain of causality. Why stop there? In other words, why do we have these emotions? Some combination of nature and nurture. Where do those come from, and why do they have those effects? Genetics, natural selection, the causality of the whole universe in an unimaginably complicated system, far, far beyond any possibility for complete comprehension. To say "emotion is master" is to say that the original source for all our actions IS oneself, that we are, in a sense, in control of everything. But that's the opposite of what you meant to say, I think.

Because they describe the objects acting causally in specified ways, wherein whether anyone is aware of these actions plays no role.

Kids these days with their devil music. I knew not outlawing jazz was a mistake.

Results are mixed, depending largely on force commitment and mission parameters. But what's your point? Peacekeeping is impossible and therefore pointless? They would receive more criticism if they were more successful? Certainly more aggressive peacekeeping (peace imposing?) with more muscle behind it tends to be more effective, as in the Balkans. The only criticisms I remember from that was that it was all an elaborate plot to distract Americans from Bill Clinton's sex life. EDIT: Interesting research on Wikipedia: "The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were Pakistan (10,173), Bangladesh (9,675), India (9,471), Nepal (3,626), Jordan (3,564), Uruguay (2,583), Italy (2,539),Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa" Does anyone else think that's an odd list? I don't really know much about the way the UN in particular does this kind of thing. Can anyone shed some light?

I dunno, peacekeeping tends to have more international approval than invasion or supporting one side in a civil war. Just start wearing those blue helmets. Or even not. France, for example, currently has 35,000 troops deployed in various peacekeeping roles around the world, and they don't get any flak for it.

Well, we need our scientists to behave as if they believe it does, yes. But if you consider that ultimately, all experiences are thoughts, and hence the life of the mind is the only real object of inquiry - :::notices torches, runs away:::

Why do you say that? This could be retitled, "When liberals act irrationally, these are some of the reasons why." Too true. I said in the first post that the labels are usually overused and oversimplified. But there is a correllation between viewpoints that make it at least somewhat meaningful to talk about as an archetype. A vague archetype. At the very least, as you say, these labels reflect how many people see themselves, which is itself significant to talk about.

Assuming you mean "has a smaller radius" for "smaller," and "lower" atomic number instead of "higher," the answer is that increasing the number of protons in the nucleus means the electrons are more attracted and move in closer. When there isn't a higher electron shell added, that generally means the atom gets smaller.

All adverse? Perhaps, if "fascism" is to be equated with, you know, Hitler and stuff. But just as adverse? I really don't think so. Or, more accurately, I think liberals are much more concerned about becoming like fascists, while conservatives have less aversion to certain similiarities. A fair question. The best answer I can offer is that there are several other factors at work, such as the perception of GW2 as arrogant, poorly planned, and framed in "axis of evil" terms, predictably resulting in many years of chaos. It has nothing to do with any love for Saddam, trust me. It wasn't meant to be. It is a concentration camp. That it's taken so provocatively demonstrates my point: such things have a deeply ingrained association with fascism. Liberals see the similarities and have much more of an instinctive revulsion to them than conservatives. We use euphamisms like "internment camp" (and "regime change," and any number of others) for precisely that reason. An example of self-defeating principles, on par with "wiping out" oppression using oppressive means. It is seen as unambiguously bad because it denies room for ambiguity... Of course they have their proper place, I'm just talking about relative emphasis. I think they do. Or at least, they care a lot less. But perhaps a less controversial statement would be that liberals want a more educated leader, in the classical sense. For example, something like familiarity with high culture.

It's a question that's supposed to be contemplated but not answered. It doesn't have an answer.

I think I'd better repeat that I really don't want this to devolve into juvenile flaming. If you think something is inaccurate, explain why. If you think it's offensive, explain why, calmly. There's no need to antagonize. And if you think somebody else isn't following those guidelines, just don't feed the troll. I'd like to see if we can be mature about something which might be touchy. ANYWAY. That's an account of emotional liberalism as aversion to fascism, in particular. There are other types, of course. Traditional conservatism seems more to be an aversion to... what? Anarchy? Moral uncertainty? Not belonging to something? I admit I don't understand it as well. Libertarianism is something else again. Aversion to... being forced to belong to something? Maybe this will go somewhere and maybe it won't. Perhaps you're right. But why is that? Could it be that liberals want to push pluralism and ambiguity, which requires more intellectualism, and thus are prone to the "intellectual elitism" they're constantly accused of? In contrast, conservatives just want a particular thing pushed (and hence people don't have to think about it), and libertarians resent anything being pushed. Or something.

To put it in a slightly different way from other people: Light is the only thing which IS visible. The only thing you ever see is the light which hits your retinas. When you "see" an object, you're not seeing the object itself, you're seeing the light, from some other source*, which reflects off of that object into your eye. That's why you can't see in the dark. You wouldn't see the spotlight because those photons aren't entering your eyes. *Or sometimes the object itself is the source, if it's hot enough to give off visible light. Still, though, you're seeing the photons it gives off, not the thing itself. EDIT: On why light doesn't reflect other light. Light travels as waves, which cannot alter one another's path. It's not special to light - you can see it with water waves. They just pass right through one another. Reflection can only occur at some hard surface, or when passing from one medium to another (like air and water).

I wonder what would happen if unrestricted internet access was universally availible. I guess there would also have to be the (unrealistic) condition that there was a common language. Would war really be possible?

Usually my desktop is plain black, but right now it's a sweet painting of Cthulhu. I'm too computer illiterate to give a screenshot, though.

My guess is you look for soft tissue (which is incredibly rare) the same way you look for other fossils. So they're not "not looking," it's just hard to find.

It's not really clear from the article what's being proposed. What would a "rebuilding" entail?

I realize it's kind of a rule of thumb that any attempt to associate political positions with personality types will almost certainly devolve into a stupid flame war. However, it's still quite tempting, given the high correlations of agreement in seemingly unrelated issues, making terms like "liberal" and "conservative" very nearly meaningful in describing the general outlooks of a great many people. Usually such terms are overused and oversimplified, but there still seems to be some truth behind them. That said, I promise I do NOT have any kind of agenda here. This is something which occured to me just now, and is still quite poorly formed in my mind. The idea here is to define and explain various groups by what they're not, which seems novel and possibly useful in understanding one another. I'm not saying that all positions are determined emotionally. It is possible to have reasonable discussion and debate, and change minds, and make pragmatic decisions. But it does seem like the foundation of political beliefs, the "starting point" of debate, is quite emotional, indeed. Anyway, this whole idea arose while pondering what liberals in modern America, a group I think I understand reasonably well, are all about. I'll start with a rambling analysis of that group in those terms, and maybe expand it later... Liberals, in large part, are motivated by a deep-seated emotional aversion to anything reminding them of "fascism." Fascists are strong nationalists and statists, equating morality with service to this nation. They are flag-wavers. They are absolutists and utter dogmatists, with extreme and inflexible positions. The state becomes a religion, which may or may not include a more traditional "religion" in its dogma. They dominate other nations because they can and with no moral qualms, militarily or otherwise. They cherish exclusiveness in their codes of behavior: the mother culture is superior, foreigners have no value, superiors must be obeyed in all things. They are anti-intellectual, because intellectuals spread ideas which don't fit into their cosmology. To a liberal, all of this embodies pure evil. A liberal is NOT necessarily the "opposite" of a fascist, merely the reaction to one. Sometimes the reactionary nature of liberalism is self-defeating, and they end up sharing some characteristics with the things they hate. The more self-aware liberals are, the less this happens. What this means, practically: Liberals abhor the cult of the state. They embrace cosmopolitanism and humanism, and make no moral distinctions between people of their country and of another. Sometimes, in reaction to those who do seem to make such distinctions, they will go overly far and actually seem to favor foreigners over their own countrymen. This often combines with... Liberals hate dominators and exploiters of the weak. As such, they are inherently more sympathetic to "underdogs" of all sorts. The poor in class struggles, the traditionally disenfranchised in race relations, lifestyles suppressed by "traditional values," weaker nations in conflict with stronger nations. They are wary of dominant forces merely because they are dominant. Sometimes, when taken too far, this can result in artificial dominance of other groups (affirmative action) and heavy-handed, self-defeating "oppression of oppression" in censorship of "hate-speech" and the like. They hate militarism, and are profoundly cynical about any offensive military action, especially those that remind them of other, more nefarious conflicts. (Hence, they're horrified by Guantanamo Bay, which is, after all, basically a concentration camp.) This often combines with the previous two traits, in obvious ways, with resulting attitudes which those who don't understand them mistake for "traitorous." Indeed, when unchecked, it can closely resemble treasonous attitudes. They hate absolutism and dogmatism. It always makes a liberal uneasy to hear things like "they're wrong and we're right." They are pluralists and relativists. This manifests in lots of ways. They always look for shades of gray and alternative points of view, and can exaggerate the "devil's advocate" point of view in response to those who only seem to see one side of an issue. They hate blanket statements. They constantly stress analogies between their situation and others (other nations, other cultures, other religions), drawing similiarities and highlighting hypocrisies. They're terrified of "theocracy," and will often show hostility towards the dominant religion and more so towards those who would make universal decisions based on it. Nothing annoys them more than hearing George Bush talk about "evildoers." Of course, constantly seeing the other guy's point of view leaves one with very little resolve, and prone to passivity. Finally, they value intellectualism over other virtues, like courage or hard work. They want their leaders to be highly intelligent and versed in a variety of different ideas. They tend to value a liberal education over specialized training, and look down their noses at mere financial success. Obviously, this explains more of the contempt for GWB...

I can only express continued utter bafflement at this whole, snowballing phenomenon. The effect is way, way bigger than the apparent cause. What is going on here?

Rocket Man: In order to be able to support any weight, the counterweight has to be above geostationary orbit. If it is at geostationary orbit, it will stay in place, but any weight applied to it (which is the whole point) will drag it down. Therefore, the cable has to be attached to the ground and taut at all times, to keep it in place.

Don't you hate vestigial buddies?

Seems like it would have to reduce the height of tides and speed of currents. The crashing waves thing would just be a side effect of that, no? Oh, and Dak: winds are caused primarily by pressure gradients, air flowing from high to low. Temperature differences are a major cause of that - warmer air rising, leaving low pressure in its wake. That's what all coastal breezes are, because water retains heat longer than land, etc. Other factors include stuff like the coriolis effect and landscape obstacles. EDIT: Wow, you're right. This is quite the temporal anomaly. Future posters, is there anything we should be warned about?

"Sex crimes are murder?" Surely there are degrees, no? It's not all rape and child pornography. Technically, statutory rape is a sex crime. That could mean a difference of two or three years - a couple of high school kids, one of whom becomes a "sex offender" pariah for the rest of his life. Indecent exposure is considered a sex crime, also. I know somebody who very nearly became a convicted sex offender when some teenage girls saw him drunkenly peeing on a tree and reported him. Is he a "murderer?" Should he have to live under a bridge for the rest of his life, spit on and constantly in danger from vigilantes? There are some very disturbing aspects of how we deal with sex crimes in this country which make me very uncomfortable from a civil liberties standpoint...

I'm not sure exactly what you're describing. What does "entirely orbital" mean? A space elevator is a counterweight above geostationary orbit physically connected to a ground station by some sort of cable, which the "elevator car" can move up and down. What supports and shaft? The whole thing is a cable. That wouldn't happen. Lightning is a discharge between negative and positive charges, and so it can only be between those regions. The lightning necessarily is "used up" before it leaves the atmosphere. Why would they do that? The elevator is connected to the ground. That's the only way it can work.

No system is foolproof, of course, and computers DO make mistakes. They just make fewer mistakes than people. And they can't be corrupt...

You still haven't said whether you mean the Earth or the Sun. But... It is impossible that it was 50-100F hotter on Earth, for many reasons. For one thing, that's way too hot for anything to live. (Well, too hot for dinosaurs, anyway!) 50-100F hotter on the sun would be totally insignificant and have no measurable effect. But what is your hypothesis? Please elaborate, and we can discuss it.