Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
The rate of unemployment seems to be known pretty well in the United States. What about the rate of job offerings which remain unfilled out of the total jobs offered? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search for unfilled jobs, and I found this article.
Its not that I'm lazy (which I actually am)... its just that I was not expecting to find any information so readily available, much less under the word "unfilled." Thanks. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a bit mystifying. Employers don't want to hire "overqualified" candidates because they're afraid they'll bolt when the economy improves? Really? Is there anybody left who thinks the U.S. economy is going to improve this decade or next? Wnt (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the current U.S. system, anytime a business hires a new employee they are at a real disadvantage. There's human resource hours, training expenses, taxes, insurance, and a plethora of legal risks and other considerations that must be weighed. ESPECIALLY When times are tough, like now, it often makes more sense to increase the compensation of existing employee to take on more of the work load, rather than to hire someone new. This can be good for long-term employees to "move up the ladder", but, unfortunately, also decreases the number of employment opportunities. Politics aside, this can become a reinforcing loop, and is not good in the big picture, but makes sense for an individual company who's main concern (and rightfully so) is profit margins. Quinn░ RAIN05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, employers can afford to be picky and leave job openings out there without actually hiring someone if they don't like the candidates that apply. When the job market is bad, they know they'll continue to get applications and will eventually get someone they like. SDY (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many businesses, particularly with large numbers of low-paid staff, have very high staff turnover (e.g. the turnover rate for McDonalds kitchen staff is over 100% p.a.[1]). This means that even in a recession there'll be a lot of staff leaving, a lot of recruitment and hence a lot of vacancies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quinn's comment is mostly right, but I see little evidence that U.S. employers are increasing compensation for existing employees when they increase the workload. Real wages have been trending steadily downward since the last recession and, anecdotally, I don't know of anyone who's received a significant raise in the past few years. Far, far more common is to increase the workload without increasing compensation. Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out the name of an ancient philosopher I heard a story about. Supposedly he wasn't convinced that water could drown you or falling could kill you, so whenever he went out some of his friends went with him to keep him out of danger. But supposedly he chased his cook through the streets of Athens for having served a poor meal to his guests. It might just be solipsism but I thought there was a school of philosophy that took its name from him. Any idea what name I'm trying to remember? RJFJR (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to overlap somewhat with this account of Pyrrhon of Elis, aka Pyrrho -- except that Pyrrhon is said to have dismissed a student who chased the cook, not to have chased the cook himself. Ring any bells? Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the a list of political criteria by which presidential candidates are rated or compared with other candidates, which might effect whether they are chosen over another candidate? (for instance, when Lincoln ran for President a girl suggested that he might be more electable if he wore a beard - so facial hair could be considered one of those criteria.) --DeeperQA (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beard: "The last President of the United States to wear any type of facial hair was William Howard Taft, who was in office from 1909 till 1913." Looks like no beard is a criteria of the last 100 years. Rmhermen (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been amused by the fact that since Obama was elected, a number of people, who wouldn't have voted for him in a pink fit anyway, have been somehow trying to prove that he is a Muslim. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose a website wants to cause some drama by pretending it was hit with a ICE seizure. Instead of the "correct way" of faking it they put up a 404 page secured by ice.gov's SSL certificate. When a user visits the site they are hit with a SSL security warning page showing that the website is supposedly associated with the ICE somehow. Would would this violate any US federal laws? Anonymous.translator (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's a law about impersonating a federal agency to gain something of value, but I can't remember if impersonating per se is forbidden. 18 USC 912 is the chapter and verse on obtaining things of value. The exact text: "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." In this case they are arguably "pretending to be" ICE. Whether they're "acting as" ICE is less obvious. If they actually gained an advantage against a competing business, that would be a "thing of value" and they'd be in violation, but you'd probably have to demonstrate to the court that there was a gain, not just a possibility of a gain. SDY (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays if you acknowledge indebtedness and the person you are indebted to writes off the debt after you have failed to pay then the underpaid debt may be considered income. If your website tactic is what convinced the creditor to write off your debt and it is now considered income then it might also be considered gain. Some Federal prisons have tennis courts. Enjoy. --DeeperQA (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I just know this line because somebody accused me of it a little while back on my talk page (long story). If you want an actual opinion of whether that particular behavior is illegal, you'll have to ask a lawyer. All I know is that there is a law, and the law has some really awkward wording. SDY (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are always phony snail mail envelopes going through the mails with legal-looking seals trying to make people think they come from governmental agencies. Those don't seem to be illegal. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions of "Would it be legal to do X?" or "Is party A breaking the law by doing so and so?" are inappropriate here. The Ref Desk volunteers may not give any legal advice, and certainly one would be unwise to rely on any legal advice obtained from anonymous strangers ion the internet. Edison (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warren Buffet does not mind if he and his peers are taxed heavily on income above $1,000,000 a year while Obama sets the amount at $250,000. The poverty line is currently $10,890 for an individual (which is a disgraceful joke if you have a car and rent or have a mortgage on a house) while the average income is $49,500. That means the average income is 4.54 times the poverty line while $1,000,000 income per year is 91.83 times the poverty line and 20.20 times the average income. $250,000 is 22.96 times the poverty line and 5.05 times the average income. Why are the multiples of the poverty line not used to determine how much individuals can afford to pay in income tax or is there a more accurate curve that does? (You can think of the multiple as the number of years you can go without a job.)--DeeperQA (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To start, a point of clarification: El Presidente doesn't set nuttin' when it comes to taxes. Taxation and all revenue is controlled by the House of Representatives, the so-called "power of the purse." Obama may have some influence over it as the leader of the Democratic Party, but given that they're the minority now that's not much influence. He can ask for things, of course, and he's got one heck of a megaphone for that purpose, but he doesn't actually write the rules. Speaking of the House of Representatives, any decision they make over taxation tends to be political horse-trading. If taxes were set by the bureaucracy ("intelligent design"), they'd probably have a more complicated base formula with more headahces but less loopholes. Since they're set by the House, they're like swiss cheese (which goes well with ham). Assuming that there is an intelligent system is a serious flaw, the tax system is a product of evolution, where the same base system has been tweaked slightly according to the political pressures of the day, but it still likely resembles its American Civil War-era origins and the 1913 Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The system you're proposing makes sense on a certain level, but it's not how the tax code is written. SDY (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also our article on progressive taxaxtion. The US federal income tax, speaking vaguely (without getting into the aforementioned swiss cheese), taxes income on a scale that isn't really concerned with what your income actually is. The first $X isn't taxed at all, whether you work part time at a gas station or are Warren Buffett. Income from $X to $Y is taxed at a higher rate, but this doesn't affect the taxes you owed on the first $X. Income from $Z to $Y is taxed again higher, and again ignores taxes owed on the first $Y. Particularly since the tax structure is such that those below the poverty line generally don't owe taxes at all, there's no need for $X, $Y, or $Z to fall on exact multiples of a very rough approximation. Note also that a single-number "poverty line" does nothing to account for regional differences in cost of living: an income of $A will vary widely in whether or not it represents real poverty based on where (and how) one lives. Note how this also impacts your tying income multiples to "years without a job". — Lomn13:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current U.S. tax system does have Tax brackets set to various income levels but the system is much more complex than simple multiples of the poverty level. And further complicated by all the deductions, AMT, dividend taxes, deferrals, etc. (It matters not only how much you make a year but sometimes how you make it, how you spend it, when you can spend it and how large your family unit is.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
where was the "Strictly Come Dancing" advert filmed?
Here is a link to the BBC's blog site for Strictly Come Dancing, and the video seems to show it was on a film set somewhere, so not a real location. If you're into SCD I thoroughly recommend the BBC's minisite for the programme, where answers to questions like yours are easy to come by. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be talking about a different advert to me then: the one I've seen and saw on the BBC website featured a row of houses, and the picture on the BBC website clearly showed that the house front was just that - a brick facade held up with timber struts. Do you have a reference for you assertion of the address? You've obviously found it somewhere, otherwise why would you have asked? --TammyMoet (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got to a computer that wants to show me video clips. The YouTube version can be seen in HD and you really can read the roadsign at 0:48. I've looked several times but can't see "a brick facade held up with timber struts" that TammyMoet mentions. Perhaps I'm missing something? Alansplodge (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If God does exist, then why would God ultimately exist?
So, many so-called philosophical “ultimate questions” have been asked in history such as: Why are we and the world here? Where did everything ultimately come from? How do we know that God exists? What happens after we die? I’ve seen and heard many greasons and answers for these questions, and there is a purpose behind all of these questions. Nevertheless, people continue to ask these questions today. Apparently however, few or even no one has ever tackled what I think could be “the ultimate question.” Here is the question I’ve been contemplating recently: If God exists, then why does God ultimately exist and what’s the ultimate purpose for His existence? It’ll be difficult to explain what I mean, but I’ll give it a shot. In this situation, let’s suppose that God never decided to create everything. Therefore everything would remain non-existent. It won’t matter if there was or was no God in the midst of non-existent because non-existence would still be and remain non-existence. Now, in this next situation, let’s suppose what many religious people teach: That there is a God and in the beginning He decided to create everything for His own pleasure. Many religious people also teach, however, that He doesn’t need nor depend on His own creation for anything nor does His creation affect Him in any way. He can destroy it with no problems at any time and He could have decided not to create everything. He loves Himself infinitely more than He loves us and the rest of creation, which is still infinite though according to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all those who teach it. Christians, Jews, etc. believe that God wants us to have fellowship with Him even though He doesn’t need it nor depend on it. As a result of all this, it might not make any difference as well to God in the ultimate sense if He decided to not create anything. Therefore, it doesn’t ultimately make a difference between no God in the midst of non-existence, a God in the midst of non-existence, and the existence the God supposedly created. Yet another thing to keep in mind here is that according to the Bible and the Qu’ran probably, God can do all things, so He could probably bring Himself into non-existence if He wanted to. Final thing, saying God is eternal is a very long time indeed. He could have created everything an infinite amount of time ago, an infinite amount of time in the future, or never. With all of these things in mind, it all brings us to the question again, but I’ll word it differently and into several different questions in one: What’s the ultimate reason for God’s existence and what’s the ultimate purpose for His existence if He does exist? Are there any possible answers to this question? If there are no possible answers to this question, then why are there no possible answers available? Willminator (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being as how we can't even prove the existence or non-existence of God, the "why" of it is that much harder. But I once had a minister tell me the answer is in the first four words of Genesis: "In the beginning God". What was before the beginning (i.e. the Big Bang or whatever), only God knows. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better to say no convincing proof has yet been found of the existence or non-existence of God. While most major religions look on God as both omnipotent and benevolent, there is no good reason for either premise. God's nature or natures are bound to affect the question of whether a proof is possible: if God is indeed omnipotent but is also whimsical, self-serving, or malevolent, then there could be no proof of the existence of a God of a different kind who in fact does not exist. (Of course, it's eccentric to think of God as having a gender, but our longstanding bias may never be overcome in the English language.) Moonraker (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have no trouble calling a dog or an owl or a dolphin "it". We like to personify God because (a) we are supposedly made "in His image" and (b) his Son (who was also God) supposedly took on human form as Jesus of Nazareth - but whatever God is, God is not actually a human being and we can safely get away with calling God "it". Or "It". -- Jack of Oz[your turn]20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe; but you wouldn't refer to your father as "it" without appearing rather rude. Christians believe in "one God, the father almighty", so the same principle applies. You may refer to God in whichever way you please, but some will (sooner or later) take offence. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are metaphysical questions. Metaphysical questions are such that it is not humanly possible to get an answer for sure. Anyone who claims they have an answer --people who say they KNOW there's a god -- or that they KNOW that there is a "reason for everything" -- or they KNOW that "God has a plan" are really just parroting what they have been told to say. The reality is that these people just BELIEVE these things, not know them. That's just intellectual dishonesty which is being taught in churches, mosques and synagogues etcetera. The Rastafarians are famous for saying they KNOW that Hallie Sallesie is the messiah not merely believe. Unfortunately a paycheck hangs in the balance for clergy, so they promulgate the idea that you can KNOW (insert metaphysical faith claim here). Then there is the esoteric school who claim that they have special hidden knowledge that has been revealed to them (um, not really likely). They only thing we humans have at our disposal as a tool is reason. Reason tells us that if a claim is just unknowable in principle, then we cannot be held responsible morally for the answer. The answer to these questions are simply irrelevant. Whatever metaphysical theory or model you adopt for yourself to get you through your day, and makes you a wonderful decent person is a valid as any other. If you think the purpose of life is to worship and adore an invisible old white guy with a flowing white beard, well please just keep it to yourself. There isn't any point in trying to get other people involved in a personal metaphysical model. Other people have different models which are equally valid. There is no "meaning of life" there is only a meaning of your life. If you want to learn more about "unanswerable" questions, then I would recommend that you study or take a formal class (from a legitimate academic not some crack pot with a pov) in metaphysics and one in epistemology. I think you will find that the only real answers come when you think for yourself. Greg Bard (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All knowledge is belief. At what level can you be certain that the world you are interacting with really exists and isn't, instead, some elaborate hallucination you are having? How can you prove that to yourself? Certainty is illusion, and people define for themselves at what level their "reality" is real. You don't know anything about the world your interact with anymore than anyone else believes in God. It's just a distinction of semantics you make to give yourself a sense of superiority because your belief system is superior based on the criteria you created to make it better. --Jayron3203:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge (by a long shot). Jayron, I'm sorry but if your point is to say that well we can't call anything knowledge because of some radical skepticism about our perception, I'm afraid that just isn't reasonable and certainly not scientific. We can reasonably call knowledge our observations of the world just fine. What we cannot call knowledge are faith claims. How do I KNOW that I do not live in the Matrix? Everyday I wake up, and the world behaves as if it is real. It happened yesterday, the day before, and the day before. It is REASONABLE to say that I KNOW that I do not live in the Matrix. So too with the claim that the "sun with come up tomorrow", and the claim that "my car will start when I turn the key." It's called the principle of induction, and its pretty solid. So solid that I'm sure you have no trouble placing "faith" in, for instance, elevators, and ceilings that do not fall on you, and airplanes not falling either. Your claim that "[I] don't know anything about the world [I] interact with anymore than anyone else believes in God." is a COMPLETELY FALSE claim. Your attempt to equate scientific knowledge with religious belief is COMPLETELY WRONG. I do apologize, too. I am a logician, and so it really is my job to tell people "don't think that way." I try not to be too much of a jerk about it, but perception is what it is. I do appreciate your contributions here and they are usually quite brilliant and right on. However, it is obvious that you are a religious believer, and that is unfortunate because religion basically turns even brilliant people's brains into mush and this is an example of that. I'm certainly not aiming to portray myself as superior to anyone. However, science is clearly superior to faith as a source of knowledge and I cannot apologize for promulgating that fact. Greg Bard (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one correction. I didn't make any attempt to equate scientific knowledge with religious belief. You will find that claim nowhere in my statement. I could easily claim that your position is that scientific knowledge and religious belief are mutually exclusive concepts. I don't see why they need to be, yet you seem to be arguing from that position. --Jayron3204:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "[I] don't know anything about the world [I] interact with anymore than anyone else believes in God." is tantamount to saying that somehow my physical scientific observations of the world which can be verified by others are no more and no less valid than someone just having any old belief floating around in their head. That's just epistemically irresponsible to say the least. So when I say that I observed the result of some litmus paper and someone else says that they believe that the world is on top of a elephant on top of a turtle on top of an elephant, that is for me (to quote you) not knowing that a sample is an acid anymore than the other person knows that the world is on top of a turtle?!?!? Really?! How about this: I know with 100% certainty that 100% of the scientists on earth and 100% of the logicians on earth are going to join with me in correcting you in that irresponsible position. It's completely wrong and a bit frustrating to have to explain to an obviously intelligent person.
Also, please let me be clear there is nothing inherent in science or religion that makes them exclusive at all. In fact, for any scientific fact that can be known there is always the possibility that someone could just believe it on faith.Greg Bard (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the truth of what you are saying, but I still wonder what the point is of comparing the degree to which one knows, and the degree to which another one believes. I was thinking that you were saying they were equally valid (they certainly are not!). However one can certainly know the result of a litmus paper to an equal degree to which another person believes there is a god. However who cares about the degree of fervor in belief, as compared to confidence in knowledge. Its apples and oranges. People can believe ridiculous things with great fervor, so what?!? Greg Bard (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible says "Jehovah himself gives wisdom" (Proverbs 2:6). In God's infinity He held the advantage of meditation and inherently infinite wisdom. He wants us too to have this ability, by means of "treasur[ing] up his own commandments." The Bible says Jehovah's purpose may be carried out by means of His kingdom. To make known the eminence of this kingdom was the purpose of Jesus' ministry on Earth. In order to answer your question about God's reason for existence, another question may very well be posed: for what reason do you exist? Indeed, reason is man's wisdom, and man's wisdom is foolishness with God; also, God's wisdom is foolishness with man, which is why the love of many cools off. Schyler(exquirere bonum ipsum)00:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Theological veto. Yes it's true. Reason and logic do not support any particular metaphysical view. So anyone wanting to push their particular view onto others will eventually have to say that logic and reason are bad. It's a very unfortunate side effect of the politics of organized religion. It's when religious believers abandon reason that we get the crazy woman who throws her babies into the river because "god told her to." This is why reason has to come come first morally. You have to have a reasonable faith, and you have you go by your conscience, not anyone else's "teachings". Greg Bard (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The god who created these colliding galaxies forbids you to eat shellfish and sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman. Divine wisdom or anachronistic chauvinistic tribal taboos?-- Obsidi♠nSoul06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the question of existence, siding with that literalist biblical god, is like siding with a despot because he is kind to you when you follow his nonsensical laws that have horrible punishments when broken. He promises plentiful rewards if only you follow him unquestioningly. In the periphery of his throne, you see the people who didn't listen being tortured by his underlings and hear their screams. You ask him why, and he just smiles and says it was their fault and he loves them anyway. If that god does exist, it is pure evil. And even if it is proven to exist, I'd rather burn.-- Obsidi♠nSoul06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... you burn in hell? ;P That's another thing. The exclusivity of organized religion. If we supposed that only one was true, only a very very tiny amount of people would be 'saved'. Majority of all the humans that ever lived would suffer for eternity. Even within a religion, different sects believe different things and these differences are apparently enough to burn one sect for eternity, but not the other. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same god, yet most of them act as if each other's version was satan himself despite differing only in very minor details. It's as if they deliberately maintain exclusivity so as to appear chosen, special, and religions regularly taunt each other about the others burning in hell, as if saving oneself by being a sycophant to a cruel deity was the most blessed of human attributes. And the rather horrific thing about it all, is that doing good matters very little if you do not belong and do not perform the same rituals everyone else is doing. What happened to the Good Samaritan? He was inarguably a person with a kind heart, the epitome of the person what most religions strives their followers to be. But he belongs to a people that were rejected and still are by Jews despite sharing the same monotheistic religion. Did he go to hell as well? And if he did, would you really call a god who would allow that to happen 'good'? Jealousy is not a very divine trait.-- Obsidi♠nSoul10:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a Roman Catholic, I do believe God exists, but I think it very differently from most other Catholics. For one, I don't believe the Earth was created in 7 days (although it could be thought of as true in a symbolic way), and I believe that God used the Big Bang to create the universe and evolution to create all the creatures on Earth (us included). I believe that things can be seen from a scientific perspective, but there is still something or someone that controls all these things, including physics. That person is God. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "very differently from most other Catholics", it's mainstream Catholic belief. Catholic schools will generally teach science and the history of the Universe in accordance with the scientific consensus. Very few Catholics have bought into Evangelical Protestant ideas of 'Biblical literalism' and Young Earth Creationism. We can even point to early Christians who, without having a scientific theory to compare it to, still argued that it was missing the point to take the Genesis account as an accurate, literal history (Augustine is the classic example, I think). The Magisterium of the Church deliberately leaves the question somewhat open, so as not to unnecessarily exclude anyone on a matter that isn't (spiritually speaking) terribly important.[4]. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. It's the usual stance of almost all Catholics I know, including my immediate family, LOL. I also find it puzzling why other countries seem to have a stereotype of Catholics as terribly traditional and literalist. Perhaps because of its rather bloody history? By experience, it is the opposite.-- Obsidi♠nSoul14:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to take this much further off topic, but that little discussion leads to the inevitable question of "What is a Catholic?" Clearly, in the minds of those who just posted, it doesn't mean someone who follows the teachings of Rome. Well, certainly not all of them. Just those that suit at the time. I find those sorts of attitudes (and not just among Catholics) a bit concerning, especially when it comes to those myriads of articles on Wikipedia telling us fairly precisely how many Catholics, Christians and assorted others there are in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you'd think this topic raises the question of "What is a Catholic?". Perhaps you are under the impression, despite my (I thought) very clearly explaining that the Vatican doesn't take a Young Earth Creationist position, that agreeing with the scientific consensus is somehow not following the teachings of Rome? I even linked to the relevant section of the Catechism, which shows you that the official position of the Church only concerns itself with the theological aspects, and encourages scientific education and enquiry. People spout a lot of rubbish about what the Church actually teaches: I recommend a read of the Catechism for the official position. There are a variety of completely valid Catholic positions on Creation, all of which are in line with Church teaching, one of the most popular of which is described by Narutolovehinata5.
But to answer the question of "What is a Catholic?": a Catholic is someone who has received Baptism, or other Sacraments of Initiation, in the Catholic Church. There is no question of "He isn't really Catholic because he doesn't make it to Mass"/"She isn't really Catholic because she believes X": one can be a lapsed Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic, or out of communion (excommunicated) with the Church, and still be Catholic. The Church lays down very clearly what the actual points of dogma are (the things that are required to be believed to be in Communion with the Church), but nobody has the power to strip someone else of their Catholic status, and there are a whole load of things which are not dogmatically defined, and on which individual Catholics will often have a position.
Every article on Wikipedia that gives a figure for members of a faith should give a source, or several sources, for that figure. There are a lot of organisations that determine numbers by what people say they are, or by how many people attend a faith service every week, or whatever. I don't see why this should be "a bit concerning", as any trustworthy source for numbers will tell you the basis they used. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there isn't actually an answer to the original question in the thread above
(Subheading created for attempting to provide actual answers to the question asked. I apologise if I missed a serious answer to the question above.)
The traditional answer from a Judeo-Christian point of view is that God answered this question when he spoke to Moses from the burning bush: "I am that I am". I recommend a read of our article on that description of God. This points to the concept of God as existence itself: God's basic property is existing. This makes God the answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?": God is existence, self-contained and uncaused: the unmoved mover, the Causeless cause. It passes the problem of existence to God, leaving God as the embodiment of the problem. Since God (in this conception) is existence, asking why God exists is the same as asking why existence is. It is, by its nature, an unanswerable question, because existence itself, God, cannot have a cause, and so cannot have a reason for being. It simply is. If it had a cause, it would not be existence, because something would have had to exist outside it.
I should also note that Christian and Jewish philosophers don't generally hold that "God can do anything that I can think of", but rather that "God can do anything that He wills", which is quite different. God isn't going to create a square circle, or an object so heavy He cannot lift it, because God isn't going to be nonsensical. There was something about God being perfect in terms of Glory, and so everything works to the Glory of God? And so God wills that which leads to more Glory for Him? I don't remember: maybe someone else could point us to that concept.
My apologies, but I thought I gave the best possible answer that I could. There is a sense in which the question is meaningless, however (not trying to be a jerk, I mean "meaning" in a strict sense). It's a hypothetical question about IF there was a god, and one should enter into the hypothetical sincerely if we are to be intellectually fair-minded about it I suppose. You have brought up a few things and there seems to be a common theme with the whole "I am that I am" thing. That is a consequence of the law of identity. An object is always the same as itself. So we have a big circle. In metaphysics, you very often find that the answer involves a big circle, i.e. a circular definition or in other cases, very often an infinite regress. If you are serious about getting answers (and not merely trolling for god --which is a very common thing at this ref desk-- happy to oblige) I would recommend giving up on the idea that there really exists a god at all. Religious belief does nothing but cloud the issues, and makes it impossible to get any real answers. You inevitably get hung up in the mythology and can't escape it.Greg Bard (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gregbard, I don't think that the Reference Desk should be used as a preaching pulpit to try to convert anyone to a particular belief. Why should anyone here say to me or anyone here whether I or someone else here should start or stop believing in God or a god? Willminator (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you are right. It was a good faith response however. I think it is a little more respectful to be forthright about things than to troll at the ref desk so people think about god. I don't know for sure that that is what the OP was into, but it is pretty common here at the ref desk. In my opinion, religion turns people's brains to mush, and I find that quite sad. Greg Bard (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you seem to question my motives for asking this question? I thought I’ve made clear that my question was never meant to go after any group of people. I was being fair in my question. I'm not going after you nor anyone, so don't worry. Just take a deep breath. :) Willminator (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no I don't question your motives at all. (I think you might be joshing, but I want to be clear.) It's just that for living life and being a good person, the metaphysical view doesn't matter at all. There are good people of every religion, even because of their religion. So I support them. However, if you are exploring big metaphysical questions, you just aren't going to make any real progress, because all the gobbly-gook mumbo-jumbo gets in the way. It just isn't a good idea.Greg Bard (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would question 86.126's statement above that God wouldn't square a circle and so forth. I would say that crediting God with genuine omnipotence is vital to giving the concept a fair consideration. To me the creation of the underlying system of mathematics and logic is far more impressive than the creation of physics and matter. We've seen mountains chewed to dust by human hands, and imagine creating vast explosions, even to the extent of universes. But the mere fact that we can't imagine how pi "originally got" one particular value or why there are dimensions and matter or why a lump of nervous tissue making calculations actually "feels" things - those are what really make a person wonder how, and by whom, a universe is created. In addition, it gives people more room to interpret specific traditional scriptures in a way that makes sense. For example, God is described as making humans and animals in a Garden of Eden, this can be interpreted as the creation of the Forms (from the Theory of Forms) rather than specific families, genera, or species. Rather than seeing God as a mere gene engineer puttering around the lab making up animals that work according to the same rules as everybody else, it is possible to see God as deciding what evolution can produce, what logically is possible for it to produce, and then (perhaps) making sure it works out that way. Wnt (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made no such definitive statement about the properties of God: I merely provided the usual definition of 'omnipotent' applied by Jewish and Christian philosophers when attributing that property to God (since this was clearly the framework the question was being asked within), and provided a link (one of many) where one could read further about this view, and other related views. This is because I was trying to answer the OP's question. I really couldn't care less what your personal conception of God is, just as I don't imagine the OP gives a toss what I personally think God is like. They wanted to know if people had considered these ideas, and if so who and in what way. And by 'people', I mean notable people, notable for their views on religion and philosophy. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do so many theological discussions between religious people, agnostics and atheists wind up turning into ridiculous childish competitions?
I thought I’ve asked a legitimate, sincere question, which I can’t find the answers to nor any other people in history who have asked that question. I did take an “Introduction to Philosophy” course in college. I also studied religion, and had a religious upbringing too. In all these studies, I learned about those philosophers and theologians who have asked and tried to answer the questions: Why are we here, where do we come from, what happens after we die, how will the world end, and is there a god? I learned that the reason religion exists because of these questions, and the goal of any religion is to attempt to answer these questions with their different stories. However, I’ve never heard about any philosopher, theologian, or layman in history and even today try to answer the question about why does God ultimately exist if He does. I thought about the question while I was taking the philosophy course in college. No one I asked knew how to answer the question. The reasons behind this question I tried to explain in detail in the very first post of this section. The reasons I came up with came from my study of philosophy, religion, and my religious upbringing, so my question is an educated one. All I want to know is what are the answers, if any, to the question I asked that have been brought to the table? Also, who in history asked the question would be helpful to me. If no one has come up with the answers to the question and if there aren’t any answers available to my question, then why would that be? That’s all I was trying to ask. I don’t know how my question can tick off some people here. I don’t know why some people here seem to be “Avoiding the Question” which is a logical fallacy, which you can look it up in the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Willminator (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It ain't your fault that some people have those reactions to a legitimate and important question. I have asked myself that question about God a few times, though never really thought about it at length. I'm afraid that in any internet forum with a large number of people, you will often find that people wish to get into big angry discussions about this sort of thing. In those discussions, they want to show themselves as either being a holier-than-thou atheist that feels they have it all figured out or a very religious person who is super offended and feels they must spread their wisdom to those not touched by God etc (both of which I find to be rather disagreeable, even though I'm a religious intellectual :p). I would recommend having this conversation with your most intelligent friends and family. they're a better choice than people in the intertubes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who posted "What if god does exist, but it's not yours?" I did that in a deliberately somewhat provocative way without the capital "g" on "god" to highlight the inherent Judeo-Christian bias in the original question. I like to think that in an open environment like Wikipedia, such questions, which appear to be general in nature but are really already loaded in a particular direction, can be healthily broadened in scope. I hope others don't see that as too childish. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because what to most people are mere exercises in philosophical questions had and still has deadly implications for some of us. You can perhaps afford to smile benignly at scriptural literalism and fundamentalism, because after all, it doesn't and hasn't affected you. Some of us can't. Anyway my shot at the original question:
I believe it's the fascination of the great mystery. You've probably experienced it, but didn't know what it was. I certainly have and still do at times. An example: when you look up at the night sky and realize that every blinking light is a massive star with their own worlds and that even then they only constitute a very small part of the vastness of everything and out there are more blinking lights, each of which is a galaxy containing more stars than you can see now, and even farther out in both distance and time are ancient massive things you can't even begin to imagine the true natures of. You feel a certain powerful awe - I guess you can call it the numinous - and you really can't help but ask 'Why?' And it happens for different reasons for different people from listening to monks chanting vespers as the sun sets, to a particularly vivid dream, to watching lightning split open a tree and start a brushfire.
A religious person would describe it as ecstasy, transcendence, illumination, magic, divine wrath, the supernatural, the face of god, etc. A nonreligious person would describe it as wonder, awe, horror, etc. We experience the same things, and ask the same questions, but we do not reach the same conclusions. It inflames the imagination and we try to capture it, share it, and most importantly explain it. From tribal folklore to modern sciences, all are driven by the desire for an explanation. Some claim to have found the answers already, some don't. Some are satisfied with the explanations of others, some have to write new interpretations for it. Some answers are playful and silly, some are deadly serious. Some answers are simplistic to the point of absurdity, some are so complex no one really honestly understands it. These are our arts, our songs, our dances, our religions, and our sciences.
While I doubt we ever will find the answer, it doesn't stop us from asking. As Albert Einstein said, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." -- Obsidi♠nSoul12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "You can perhaps afford to smile benignly at scriptural literalism and fundamentalism, because after all, it doesn't and hasn't affected you. Some of us can't." -- That is actually entirely wrong, please do not make such assumptions when you know nothing about the person. My girlfriend is a member of Israel's Air Force and is endangered by various fundamentalists and literalists of the three major Abrahamic faiths. So, it very much affects me and her given that I wish to marry that girl and have a family with her rather than have her die as a result of the many forms of death that her job and assignment (her airbase) put her in danger of (something I worry about every day). please consider in the future, when making such assumptions, that a person is in fact affected by the thing you are talking about so as to avoid making grossly inaccurate and rude statements.
When I say childish, I am referring to direct digs at people's faith meant to provoke them, such as this comment above, "The god who created these colliding galaxies forbids you to eat shellfish and sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman. Divine wisdom or anachronistic chauvinistic tribal taboos?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)" (I didn't look at the author until this morning btw :p), which seems, to me at least, to mock certain Jewish beliefs (even though I don't adhere to the latter and do find it silly, still). They're unnecessary and distract people; I have seen it so many Off-Topic forums. It's okay to engage in theological discussion and critique, but it's rude and not anthropologically sound to mock the cultural traditions of another group just because you dislike them (and I'm pretty sure that is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I was referring to the Christian selective interpretation of Leviticus in response to using the bible to directly imply firsthand knowledge of the motives of god. I was picking the most blatantly anthropocentric passages I can think of, the thought of the Jewish kosher (and indeed, Muslim halal) did not enter my mind at all. >.< -- Obsidi♠nSoul14:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no worries, I know/remember very little of that Christian stuff, and it had crossed my mind that it was probably something Christian you were referring to, but you see the inherent danger if the thing your talking about is present in more than just your own errr... culture? Religious familial background? (you know what I mean). Better to just say that it is suspect in your view that any divine being who creates such wonders would also trouble themselves with some of the strange laws we see in the Abrahamic religions (that way no one can say "he is mocking X-belief!"). I will admit that the only reason I picked that one out though is because it was so visible and I didn't feel like reading the massive amounts of text already in place, so there may have been some more calm and civil discussion. When I see stuff like that though.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it turned-out, a Scottish newspaper displayed a picture of one the footballers (albeit with his eyes obscured, however his identity was plainly obvious).
Before I post my question - this is not a request for legal advice, simply a query concerning the jurisdiction of English Law on US-based websites.
Recently I have noted a number of examples, where English citizens have been prosecuted or investigated for comments they have posted on either Facebook or Twitter:
1. Kate Middleton's friend interviewed under caution by police after 'joke' about shooting illegal immigrants
Using London-based law firm Schillings as an advisor, action has been undertaken by the footballer against Twitter in an attempt to obtain information on some of the users involved in naming Giggs.[18][19] The action is known as CTB v Twitter Inc, Persons Unknown.[20] A blogger for Forbes magazine remarked: "Giggs has not heard of the Streisand effect", observing that mentions of his name had significantly increased after the case against Twitter had been reported in the news.[21] According to measurement company Experian Hitwise, traffic on Twitter in the UK rose by 22% after the action was reported.[22] Peter Preston, former editor of The Guardian, compared the CTB situation to the Spycatcher affair of the 1980s, in which Peter Wright's book had been openly on sale in Australia and other countries, despite being banned in the UK.[23]
The headquarters of Twitter are in San Francisco, and legal experts pointed out the difficulties in suing in a United States court, where First Amendment protection applies to freedom of speech. London-based lawyer James Quartermaine commented: “Twitter will probably just ignore it and consider it to be offensive to their First Amendment rights. It’s probably an attempt to try and show that actions have consequences in cyberspace.”[24] On 21 May 2011, lawyers at Schillings denied that they were suing Twitter, and said that they had made an application "to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order."[25]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if I travel to Florida and see an English person and say something that may be illegal in Britain. That English person may try to report me to the US authorities, however I can claim "Freedom of Speech". When we both return to England, he can try to report me to the British police, who will advise that as the alleged incident took place in America, it is outside British jurisdiction - Surely this is identical to what is happening with the Facebook/Twitter comments Jaseywasey (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a request for legal advice - the point I am making is that Scottish & Irish newspapers have ignored the "Super-Injunctions" due to these orders only applying to England & Wales, therefore I cannot see how any comments posted on US websites can be covered by English law! Jaseywasey (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand English laws limiting freedom of speech, but conceivably a person subject to English law could get away with having banned speech appear in a print publication outside of England because a paper publication could be confiscated once it reaches England. However, since English authorities do not (yet) seem to block websites, a publication on a website, no matter where it is hosted, might be considered a publication within England in a way that a print publication is not. (Apparently, though, Wikipedia is careful not to use servers in the UK to avoid exposure to English libel laws.) Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following line in the Freedom of Speech article:
On 27 February 2008 civil servant Darryn Walker was arrested by officers from Scotland Yard's Obscene Publications Unit for posting a work of fiction allegedly describing the kidnap, mutilation, rape and murder of the girl band 'Girls Aloud' on a fantasy pornography website. While the website was hosted outside the UK, Walker's prosecution was possible under UK law as he is a British citizen living in the UK. He was found not guilty on 29 July 2009 as the CPS offered no evidence.
This seems to raise more questions than it answers, but it appears there is a mechanism within UK (English?) law - I would be interested in finding out more information concerning this provision Jaseywasey (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at this page on the Crown Prosecution Service Website and scroll down to "Improper use of public electronic communications network - Section 127 Communications Act 2003". This seems to be the legislation used to convict the Facebook troll cited above. I can't see that the location of the server has any bearing on it. "If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place."Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question would be, were they in the UK when they sent these messages? If they were, then even though the server was outside the UK, this would not strike me as an attempt at extraterritorial jurisdiction. (I generally take a very dim view of claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the linked newspaper article about the Facebook case, it says that the offender was unemployed and lived in Reading, so rather unlikely to be flying off to foriegn parts to make his posts. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Travtore is right. If you are in England when you click the "post" button, then you are performing an action under English jurisdiction, and liable under English law. That seems to me a reasonnable interpretation from the judges.--Lgriot (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be any specific law, but the usual justification of charges is that they are incompetent to make decisions for themselves, so anyone who has sex with them is committing a form of rape (similar logic as for statutory rape based on age). Although, in some nations there are also eugenics laws that ban the retarded from reproducing, and they may also ban sex, as that can lead there. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant law is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically the provisions relating to 'Offences against persons with a mental disorder impeding choice', 'Inducements etc. to persons with a mental disorder' and 'Care workers for persons with a mental disorder' in sections 30 to 44. Link here. Down Syndrome comes within the ambit of mental disorders under this Act. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A prohibition sounds horrible in some cases. I'm positive that some people with Down Syndrome are intelligent enough to know what they are choosing. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it sounds reasonable. I don't believe it is applied systematically against certain group of people, but rather on those impaired enough to not be able to make an informed decision. It's more about the lack of ability -and dependence on a tutor- than the deficiency -Down syndrome, schizophrenia that you have. Wikiweek (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the legislation is clear it only applies when the person "lacks the capacity to choose whether to agree to the touching (whether because he lacks sufficient understanding of the nature or reasonably foreseeable consequences of what is being done, or for any other reason)" or "is unable to communicate such a choice to A." [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems vague to me. If somebody believes a person with mild Downs Syndrome is able to to make their own choices, must they get an opinion from the court, or else risk their freedom by having a relationship based on their own perception ? If an IQ point was used as the dividing line, instead, then having those test results in hand should protect them. The vagueness of this law is similar to if age of consent laws just said the person must "be mature", rather than specifying a specific age. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's vague: it's dealing with a vague area that requires individual judgement. An IQ test line would be a horribly unjust and ridiculous approach: why would someone's ability to complete a pattern accurately reflect their ability to consent to sex? A 10-year-old maths prodigy isn't necessarily (or often) more emotionally and socially developed, such that they can consent to sex. By its nature, this has to be a matter of judgement. As a general rule: if you think there is any doubt about someone's ability to consent, or you think other people will generally doubt they truly consented, don't have sex with them. This is a basic rule unless you're a rapist. Doubts about their consent? Don't have sex. Don't engage in other sexual behaviour. It won't kill you. I really don't see the problem for anyone except sexual predators and those who harbour stalker-like delusions as to their 'lover's feelings. Either they can unambiguously consent, or sex is not an option. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What strikes me is the apparent lack of concern for the viewpoint of the "protected" person. Maybe they actually want to have sex - that feeling seems to be fairly common among "normal" people. While I see the need to protect mentally handicapped people from predation, does society have the right to deny them a healthy sex life by effectively criminalising most sexual activity? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK society has the right to protect more vulnerable members from themselves if needed and if the mentally handicapped person really wants to have sex with somebody who is also willing then the issue has some simple rules. S/he will have to talk to his/her legal guardian (usually the parents). Those in turn will judge if the person is capable of understanding the whole issue. If they agree the person can have sex with his girlfriend. If they disagree the person can't have sex with his girlfriend. IMHO such conversations (the couple simply talk to the parents before doing anything) solve the majority of all cases.
However if the couple disagree with a negative judgement it has two choices: they do it anyway and the whole issue can end up in a court of law (and the girlfriend/boyfriend can be considered guilty of breaking the law). The other choice is that they hire a lawyer and go to court with the intent to prove that the person is capable to decide this issue. Either way the court will have to decide who is wrong and who is right. I imagine that such legal cases are rare. Flamarande (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL @ asking your parents for permission to have sex. Will they then discuss sexual positions ? What color is the sky in your world ? StuRat (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about normal horny teenagers. We are talking about mentally handicapped persons who are vulnerable and therefore under the protection of their parents who are their legal guardians (under a certain POV they never cease to be children - at the least in the eyes of the law). If they don't trust their own parents and are ashamed to talk about sex despite knowing that they themselves are handicapped then they are somewhat unable to judge the matter at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because while they are embarrassed to talk to their parents they aren't mentally handicapped and therefore have the legal right to decide the issue for themselves (as they reach the proper age). 'Mentally handicapped' is not only a medical condition, it is also a legal one in which de facto and de jure you have fewer rights as society considers that you are vulnerable and that you need better protection against anyone who might wish to take advantage of you and from yourself if needs be. Therefore the legislature passes certain laws (which vary from country to country) which grant your legal guardian increased power and responsibility over you. He has the power to decide certain issues even if you don't agree with his judgement as you are considered incapable of deciding such issues. If you disagree you can go to a court and argue your cause. The court might agree and decide that you are capable of deciding said issue. They might even give you a different guardian (if they consider that your present one is inadequate). Flamarande (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they do, in which case they will consent. But if you cannot say with certainty that somebody has consented to sex, you cannot assume that they would want to just because you think it would be "normal" to want to. And you cannot assume that they have sufficient understanding to have consented. This is all about the viewpoint of the "protected" person: the default assumption has to be that somebody doesn't want sex unless they can unambiguously consent. It would be far worse for someone to be raped than for someone to not have sex who'd quite like to. And there is almost certainly going to be a power-differential element as well, just as we do not allow teachers to have sex with 16-year-old students, who are above the age of consent: two people with a more limited social and emotional maturity having sex is less likely to involve predation and coercion than a person with limited social and emotional maturity having sex with a person with much greater social and emotional maturity. All of this complicated and variable stuff is why it is left vague, to be a judgement call. Anecdotally, abuse and taking advantage of mentally handicapped adults is far more common than prosecution for the same :( 86.164.76.231 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But a power differential is also very common where both parties are adults of normal intelligence. <satire>Shouldn't all boss/secretary relationships be legally considered rape, too ?</satire> StuRat (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All, Stu? You don't give secretaries much credit for free thought, free will, and the ability to say "Boss, I'll type your letters, I'll make your coffee, I'll even buy your wife's anniversary present, but I won't sleep with you, and if you ever make this suggestion again I'll have you charged with sexual harrassment and I'll also tell your wife what's going on". -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused now. First you suggest that all boss/secretary relationships should be legally considered rape, but now you're saying that not all relationships with uneven power are abusive. What exactly are you saying? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are wearing it to actually tell time, then no Wikipedian is qualified to tell you, because it is up to you to determine what is most convenient for your needs. If you are seeking out some prevailing tradition to conform to, well then by all means wear the thing on the opposite hand from the one which you favor.Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page says that men started wearing watches on their wrists at the end of the 19th century, in particular, British officers in the Second Boer War. My conjecture, but at the start of an attack, they would have needed to have their watch on their left hand, to have the right hand free for their service revolver (unless left-handed). Right-handed men wearing watches on their right hand (at least in the UK) is a modern affectation and I never saw it done until recently. It still looks a bit odd to me. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that people wear their watches on the opposite hand than the one they write with because it may be uncomfortable to have a watchband under their wrist as they write. Dismas|(talk)21:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I wear a watch out of habit (on my left wrist), but I remove it as soon as I get to work because it is an annoyance when I'm typing. -- kainaw™15:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wristwatches are virtually always worn on your off wrist. So for you that'd be your left. If it's an analog wristwatch, you may notice that the winding stem is facing to the right, that's so that righties can wear the watch on the left wrist and wind/set it with their right hand. (Us lefties are pretty much forced to take an analog watch off before we wind or set it.) APL (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I typically (but not always) wear my wristwatch on my dominant wrist. I think it's a matter of personal preference. Most people seem to prefer to wear it on the opposite hand, but I'm not aware of any cultural values that stipulate that one should do so. I think it's up do you; I doubt that most people would notice, or that those who notice would pass judgment. At least for me, as an American, it doesn't matter at all. I certainly have never had anybody take issue with my wrist-watch wearing habits, and only very occasionally has someone even cared to comment on it (perhaps twice or three times in my life). Falconusptc23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this question, how can anyone say "unless the stem is on the right side", etc. Watches are worn on the left hand, period. That's the rule. Lefties will break this rule, almost always doing so consciously. (As opposed to writing with their left hand, which doesn't break any rule). So, now you know the rule. You are absolutely under no means to follow it, and regardless of whether you are a rightie or a leftie or have a watch wtih a stem on the right or left side, you can wear it on either wrist. You can even wear two watches, one on each wrist, or two watches on the left wrist (one very narrow band watch). All of these also break the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never in my life heard this. I have always heard that watches go on the off hand, even in formal dress. Maybe back in the olden days when it was considered shameful to be lefty, you'd wear the watch on your left to hide your shameful hand-preference, but that certainly hasn't been the case at any point in my lifetime. (Back then a gentleman would never write with his left hand, either. Not in public, anyway.)
Furthermore, you say this "rule" applies even with left-handed watches?!? So you're saying that even if you've paid extra to have a watch that was specifically manufactured as a left handed watch to be worn on your right wrist, the "rule" says that you have to wear it on your left? Anyone who noticed would laugh at you! APL (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? I have certainly never heard this "rule" (and might I add, have violated it nearly every day for the past decade); while someone may have written this "rule" down, I would personally be shocked if more than a handful of people are aware of it or give it any consideration whatsoever. So maybe it's a rule for somebody somewhere, but it's not a rule for my culture, not by any stretch. Falconusptc06:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too think this is a matter of personal preference. Some right-handed people wear the watch on the left hand, some prefer the right hand. – b_jonas11:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too was taught by my parents that the watch should be on the left hand. Looking for phrases such as "wristwatch", "left hand" and "right hand" on google shows that it is generally acknowledged that the majority of men wear the watch on the left hand, but as for there being any rule on this, opinions differ: Some believe that there is no rule ([example 1], [example 2] ), some believe that it should go on the non-dominant hand ([example 1], [example 2]), and some believe it should go on the left hand ([example 1], [example 2]. None of the examples are particularly authoritative. In case any one is interested, Miss Manners is in the first group. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of such things, but my impression was that they were (once) practically based. If a person is going to swing a sledgehammer or reach up a cow's birth canal, best to have it in the less vulnerable position. But if what you do is type on a QWERTY keyboard all day, well, the left hand there gets more use than the right, even for a right-handed person. I would assume any and all such "rules" were limited to a time, place, and profession and are now obsolete. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently thinking about how Austria, like Germany, was divided into zones of control by the UK, US and Soviet Union after World War II and found myself wondering how it ended up that German was split into two separate countries while Austria remained unified. Given its geographic proximity to communist Eastern Europe, I would have expected Austria to end up facing a similar fate to Germany. Why didn't this happen?
12.34.4.33 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the articles on History of Austria (1945-) and Austrian State Treaty (1955). Basically it seems like the USSR agreed to leave Austria alone as long as it was proclaimed as officially neutral (see Declaration of Neutrality) and wouldn't join NATO. Which is a bit odd. Germany is the odder case of the two, though, owing to its role in starting WWII and it being essentially the border state for the USSR (given the fact that Poland was already well in the bloc). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this at all, but can't this be because the war ended in Berlin (in the middle of Germany) where neither US or the USSR would be in a position to simply say "you can have it", which would mean that the other party was the "official liberator". Austria or Hungary probably didn't have the media attention Germany had. Joepnl (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say Berlin is in the middle of Germany. Anyway, it was the product of negotiations, as Mr.98 pointed above: you give me Türingen, I give you half of Berlin and Austria remains by her own. Wikiweek (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media attention didn't really have much to do with the Allied negotiations. And it's of note that the partitioning took place well before the actual end of the war — e.g. the Yalta convention. Germany certainly had a special situation because of its being to hot spot for Hitler and all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — I would have corrected the red link with a preview but I was in a rush. And yeah, I also would have double-checked it against Potsdam! I didn't quite remember actually submitting that edit, as it was still a work in progress.. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about possible partitions occured at Yalta, but nothing was finalized in stone there. As the "situation on the ground" became more clear, and Germany's fall became iminent, the Potsdam Conference had a lot more to do with the eventual fates of the Axis Powers, especially with the division of Germany and the status of Austia. See especially the Potsdam Agreement, the resultant document of that conference. The Wikipedia article Allied-occupied Austria also covers why the Soviets had so little influence there. --Jayron3205:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something to consider... with the Anschluss, Austria was officially part of Germany. So one could say that when the war ended, Germany was actually divided into three parts: West Germany (US dominated), East Germany (Soviet dominated)... and Austria (neutral). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Austria (and Vienna) where divided into four zones/sectors after the war just as much as Germany/Berlin were. See The Third Man for a film set in divided Vienna. As pointed out above Austria got re-united in exchange for neutrality. Stalin extended the same offer to Germany. The then German government under Adenauer rejected the offer. There has been much discussion whether that was a mistake, or whether Stalin would have kept his word. 109.158.106.147 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC many historians think that Stalin viewed Austria as a loss leader, hoping to persuade the West Germans to go for neutrality too. Whether he simply hoped to remove the German resource base from NATO, or planned yet another central European coup to add it to the Warsaw Pact, I probably unknowable now. Matt's talk17:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Aynthing you say can and will(?) be used against you in a court of law"
What's the meaning of "will" in the Miranda warning? It can't mean literally that anything the suspect says will be used in a court of law. Maybe there won't be a court of law, or maybe the suspect answered "Yes" to "Do you want a smoke?". In both cases the officer lied to the suspect if the warning was taken literally. If it doesn't have to do with me not understanding that "and will" is just a normal way of emphasizing in English, does it mean that for example the officer is not allowed to ignore something incriminating the subject says, so he will tell it to the judge? Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not clear, the meaning of the example is that I'm not just able, but intend to do so (still in the hypothetical case that you piss me off). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key here is the use of the word "anything" rather than "everything." "Anything" implies that any sentence uttered is subject to scrutiny in court, including any cigarette offers. Perhaps the subject being a nonsmoker is important to his or her alibi, etcetera. "Will" has nothing to do with "anything" (not a pun, yet apt). Perhaps you are thinking of "Will" versus "shall." If it was "shall" then the officer would be required to use the affirmative reply to the cigarette offer against the subject in court for sure (which could end up being quite silly). "Will" is permissive, while "shall" is mandatory.Greg Bard (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I thought shall is just an old fashioned way of saying will, but that they mean the same. That's why I thought anything was actually turned into everything by using will. Now I wonder what you mean by (not a pun, yet apt) :)Joepnl (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People use the phrase "...nothing to do with anything" quite frequently. What I was doing was mentioning not using. The sentence I stated means The word "will" as used in the miranda warning has nothing to do with the word "anything" in the miranda warning. See use-mention distinction. Aren't I clever? (har har).Greg Bard (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. I suspect that "will" is being used here, to some degree, in the archaic sense of desire, rather than as a synonym for "shall". Unfortunately Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for "can and will", and I don't know how far back the combined phrase goes, but I think that there is some difference in meaning between how it is used there and simply saying "anything you say will be used against you...", where I think the average listener really would expect to see the entire conversation transmitted by the prosecution with some certainty. "Can and will" gives more of a sense or an implication that it is possible that it will used and that the person giving the warning wants to use it. English modal verbs are a terribly muddled system to indicate such things, but at least you don't have to learn six different endings ... Wnt (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term "will" as permissive and "shall" as mandatory is very common in the law. If you draw up a contract and you want someone to do something FOR SURE, well you'd better use the term "shall." If the law said that when a police officer sees a crime he or she "will" place someone under arrest, that only puts the matter subject to the officer's will. The officer may or may not arrest and that is just fine. Instead of arguing with the officer about it the officer just points to the term "shall" in the law and tells the subject that it isn't up to them, they should tell it to the judge. I'm not really sure that is the archaic form of "will" you were talking about.Greg Bard (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Can" signifies legality, and "will" is a warning of intent such that the defendant cannot then complain to the court that he was misled because he didn't think that something he said to the "good cop" would be used against him. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much of TD Ameritrade is owned by its founder/family?
