Humanities desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 29 >

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.

April 28

Are people supposed to order several things at a restaurant at different times or at one time?

In a restaurant, there is a list of courses - appetizer, main course, side course, dessert, and drinks. Are people really supposed to order the appetizer before the main course and then order the dessert at the end? Or are people supposed to order one from each category in the beginning and the plates will be delivered from appetizer to dessert? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This video goes through the process step by step. If there is an event there that doesn't make sense to you, we can try to provide you additional resources. --Jayron 32 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you can't be bothered to watch an eight-minute video to get the answer to your question, here it is. You order the appetizer (I normally prefer to call it starter) and the main course at the same time. Unless you tell the waiter differently, you'll be brought the starter(s) first. When everyone at the table has finished their starter, those plates will be cleared and the waiter will bring the main courses. If you want dessert, you will be given the menu again once you've finished your main course. --Viennese Waltz 14:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard and fast rule. VW's post is correct for most restaurants but I have eaten at some that have separate menus for apps, entrees/sides and desserts with each being brought to the table at the appropriate time. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette will vary somewhat depending on local culture as well. For Cantonese restaurants (not the best of Wiki articles), you'd order what type of tea you'd like, and then everything else at once. Alcherin (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could order drinks, appetizer, main course, and dessert all at once from a prix fixe menu. It seems like we always did that in France, although it was confusing at first because I've never ordered like that in Canada (or the US). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(US) It's common to order drinks first, while you read the menu and decide on the rest (or while at the bar waiting to be seated). Those drinks can just be water, possibly with lemon. Of course, if everyone knows what they want, they can order right away. However, I've noticed a problem that the person who seats you sometimes asks what drinks you want, even though they are not your regular waiter or waitress. They would then pass that info on to them. However, if you try to give them your full order they will stop you and say they will get the waiter/waitress, instead.

The reason to wait until the end to order dessert or anything to go is that otherwise they may prepare it too soon, so the desert will have melted and the to go order will be cold, by the time you are ready for it. You can order these in advance, but tell them to wait to prepare them until the end, but they may well ignore you. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In France it's exactly as follows (I do this a lot). First they ask you if you'd like a drink. You can have the drink at the bar or at your table. Amuse-bouches may be served with the drinks. When they bring the drinks they ask if you're ready to order the food. You order the starter and main course. Sometimes you are also asked to order the dessert at that point if it has to be cooked to order. After the main course you are asked if you want cheese, which may be included in the menu. Then you are asked about dessert. After dessert you are asked if you want coffees, which may be served with petits-fours. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ex)"The reason", if there is one, is that you may actually be full after the entree ;-). And as a matter of etiquette, if you are invited, you should let the host order first and scale your order accordingly - if the host orders a just a Hamburger and a coke, it might be inappropriate to have bruschetta, salmon carpaccio, lobster, a lemon sorbet, and the filet mignon... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The host should see to his guests before himself. (UK) DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll just have a small side of spaghetti ... but instead of meatballs, put a couple lobsters on top." StuRat (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The dessert can also be ordered to go, if you are full. And I find that if I have certain tastes in my mouth after the meal, like garlic, then something with fat, like ice cream, can help to reduce it. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen pudding ordered to take away in a British restaurant. DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that does not order dessert at the same time so that I can go to another restaurant with a better selection? A restaurant in Yellowknife has an excellent Chinese buffet (and the only place that servers liver (food)). However, their desserts are only OK and come directly from the supermarket. I can buy President's Choice myself if that is what I want. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, now I'm hungry! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't go sit down at another restaurant for dessert, but we might either pick up ice cream cones elsewhere or go home for dessert. I find a homemade dessert can be a way to personalize the meal without too much work. For example, I often serve ice cream and berries. That requires very little work compared with cooking a full meal. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

When does time fly or drag??

I always thought that time goes by slowly when you're waiting for something exciting, but quickly when you're dreaded about an unwanted event. The following URL, however, says that time goes by slowly in both of these cases:

https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5941/why-do-some-days-feel-fast-and-others-feel-slow

Any opinions anyone has about these?? If possible, please include links to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time perception#Effects of emotional states may be helpful. Loraof (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that sometimes I myself have different time perception for no apparent reason. On one day, for example, I feel that minutes pass faster than "normally", and on another day slower. This in turn forces me to do something faster or slower than I used to to be on time. Brandmeister^talk 18:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.” --Albert Einstein^[1] ...2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Citation requested for this unattributed quote. Blooteuth (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quote --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Modified:21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Template:Quote --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

References

Thank you for the citations. Wikiquote notes multiple sources that differ in wording and time, which is a strong indication of the Chinese whispers distortion effect in oral tradition. Blooteuth (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible that the original was in German, with varying translations; or, he frequently used this example and simply worded it differently. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is owning a human automatically slavery?

Humans already own dogs and cats. But they treat their beloved pooches and kitties with affection. The pets are fed, watered, sheltered, and played with. In return, the pets offer protection and companionship. But they are still owned. Humans also pay a fee for the adoption of human children, which goes to pay for the adoption agency's services and to show that they are sincere parents who will provide a loving home for the child. If Human 1 wants Human 2, but Human 2 belongs to Human 3, then Human 1 can ask Human 3 if Human 3 is willing to transact Human 2 in exchange for materials. If Human 3 is willing, then the transaction is made, but Human 1 must keep a promise to Human 3 to treat Human 2 with kindness, because Human 2 is biologically related to Human 3. There is money involved in all these cases. Can one human "own" another in an arrangement that is not slavery? Or is the concept of owning a human life automatically slavery? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Owning a human is slavery, by definition.

However, you may be interested in reading about the concept of "benevolent slavery". Here's a good article that covers this strange but pragmatic practice as it occurred in pre-civil war USA. Needless to say it was an artifact of the oppression that existed at that time. In a just society there wouldn't normally be a motivation to have such an arraignment. ApLundell (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be equating adoption, or parenting, with "ownership." That is not the case. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the culture and time period. In some places and times the parents (usually just the father) did literally own the children, and could do whatever they wanted with them. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between slavery, parenting, and contracts, and you seem to be conflating most of these. While all three can confer obligations and rights by one person over another, they are sufficiently distinct that you should not consider them even remotely equivalent. --Jayron 32 15:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are they different? A slave master can abuse the slave. A parent can abuse the child. And a pet owner can abuse the pet. If the pet or child or slave is abused, then the owner can be deprived of property by government action. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to read those articles. No one here is preventing you from doing so and learning about those concepts yourself. If there is a statement made in one of those articles that you do not understand, we can provide you with additional references that may clarify it. --Jayron 32 16:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the first sentence says that "any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property". Then, you see "Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour, to refer to such situations." So, a slave is a human that is bought and sold to do work. If there is no forced work involved, then a human can be bought and sold for another human's pleasure like a pet? A non-human animal that is forced to do work is called a draft animal. So, a draft animal is essentially a non-human "slave", but it's not a "slave", because in order to be a slave, you have to be a member of the Homo sapiens species. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed, misunderstood, or ignored the word "also" in the sentence you just quoted.

In any case, If you'd read the article I linked above, you'd know that slavery does not necessarily involve forced labor. ApLundell (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I still don't get why so many humans nowadays think that the idea of owning a human is a horrible idea, when non-human animals are already owned. If non-human animals are not forced to do labor, then they are considered a pet or companion animal. Keeping a companion animal is regarded as a sign of compassion, because leaving it on the streets is careless. Apparently, the reverse is true for human ownership. Buying a human and taking care of it is slavery. It is not interpreted as a sign of compassion at all. What if the human just wants to be fed and clothed and doesn't mind living in a prison cell? In that case, is slavery only wrong because the slaves themselves are actively resisting the power? If the slaves or draft animals don't resist, then does that mean that they are not enslaved? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your misconception is due to the fact that you've never been introduced to the concept of human rights. That should provide you with additional reading. If there are sentences or passages or words (like "also", which you misunderstood above) that we can help you with, let us know. --Jayron 32 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article you linked me on the history of human rights. I have another question. Here it is: "17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract." Yeah, I know it says the fundamental rights "could not be surrendered". But will anything bad happen if those "fundamental rights" are surrendered or taken away? Humans already assume that non-human animals are property, but they take care of them and get them to do work. And humans are benefitting from controlling the lives and genes of plants and animals. Plants and non-human animals apparently have no rights. But somehow, for some reason, certain individuals that are close to humans in the phylogenetic tree have "rights". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most fervent animal-rights groups (and even plant-rights) is the Jains, so you might read up on them. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Apparently, some humans take the side that animals and plants have "rights", instead of taking the side that some individuals just hold relative dominance over others, and the dominance is justified, because being the winner is better than being the loser. The loser has to submit, die, or move elsewhere. If the loser can't move elsewhere, then the loser will perish. In the case of slavery, if all the slaves just kill themselves, then the slave masters will not be slave masters anymore. How can you be a master when there is no slave? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254, these reference desks are intended for referenced fact finding and referral to appropriate further references and resources, not as forums for philosophical debate, exercises in logic-chopping, and explorations of unrealistic hypotheticals. It is perfectly obvious from your many queries in recent weeks on a wide variety of topics that you are intelligent and educated, though perhaps relatively inexperienced in some aspects of the world (youth is a self-correcting defect), and cannot be really misunderstanding what the other responders have already said above. Please stop yanking our chains. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "logic chopping". And I found this. I have to admit, I can totally relate to Paul and Bart. But I also admit that sometimes I fail to distinguish "logic chopping" and "critical thought". I thank you for providing me with that term. At least I am aware of this behavior. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second this. 50.4.236.254 has posted a large number of very bizarre and/or naive questions, which no one who has lived on this planet for any length of time could actually need answers to, or expect to get reliable references for. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] I would like to assume good faith, but it certainly seems like most of these questions are just intended to stir up debate rather than to get factual answers. CodeTalker (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are cherry-picking some of my contributions to support your views. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Here are 7 examples that do not support your views. I usually keep a stockpile of questions in my head, because I tend to ask questions about the things around me in much greater frequency than other people. I think other people take this habit of mine as "debating", as if I am supporting some kind of alternative view passionately. No, I have no passion to advocate any view. Actually, I also tend to question my own views all too often. I think other people take this habit of mine as a bit asinine. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about providing references: There are pretty good lectures on these kind of questions online. I really like OpenYale, in particular PHIL 181, PLSC 114, PLSC 118 and SOCY 151, all accessible from this page. Also, Michael J. Sandels Justice is available from Harvard (in theory) and On YouTube in reality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln - August 1, 1858: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just for the OP, but for everyone who doesn't want to read 14 papers about this philosophical debate: google Crash course philosophy #42 (cannot be linked here). By the way, I highly recommend this crash course philosophy series for anyone who wants an introduction to all the big philosophical questions. Doesn't mean to you have to agree with Hank Green of course. --Lgriot (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Childe Harold

Is there any connection between Byron's Childe Harold and the Childe Harold who disembowelled his horse and hid inside the carcass to escape a Dartmoor blizzard (he died anyway - full story here)? Alansplodge (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've not heard him called Harold before, I'm familiar with Childe's Tomb. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DuncanHill, it seems that the story-teller was getting in a confusion. It was indeed just "Childe", see Devonshire Folk Tales. Alansplodge (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked it up in William Crossing's Guide to Dartmoor - he says of Childe the Hunter "Childe does not seem to have been a proper name, though some writers not only apparently think it was, but have gone so far as to furnish the supposed hunter with another - indeed, he has had no less than three Christian names given to him, Amyas, John, and Oswald. In all probability it was the Saxon Cild, a common appellation". Cild we have an article on at Childe, and this is the Childe part of Childe Harold. Crossing gives a fuller account of the tomb and the legend in his Ancient Stone Crosses of Dartmoor, but alas I do not yet have a copy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved