Humanities desk
< March 5	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 7 >

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.

March 6

"He who studies evil is studied by evil." - Ranjen Sulber (star trek).

Explain that and if there's any truth to it. PitchBlack 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gibberish of the few is no good for the many? Clarityfiend 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unoriginal writers end up working in television?—eric 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who have knowledge of evil are the most likely to be a threat to it, and are watched closer than others. Or in a more metaphorical sense, to study evil ends up with it mastering YOU. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, why am I reminded of Dr Jekyll? Clio the Muse 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neatly opposed parallelisms purchased at the price of sense. --Wetman 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think of Anakin Skywalker as well, as an example of one who attempted to defeat evil but became so consumed with it as to turn evil himself. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first literary association was Goethe's The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Die ich rief, die Geister / werd ich nun nicht los. (From the spirits I have called / I now cannot rid myself.) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it this way. To gain knowledge of any subject you have to delve deeply into it. Delving deeply into many subjects will put you closer into contact with other people who study a subject. And not all of them may have pure research as their goal. Consider this. Try editing an edgy controversial subject on Wikipedia. Chances are, you will come into contact with others who are POV pushers. Of course, from a purely personal point of view, I can attest to the fact that studying Evil means you are studied by Evil. then again, "Evil" is the name of next door's cat. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle not with monsters

Lest ye become a monster

And if you gaze into the abyss

The abyss gazes into you

Friedrich Nietzsche Clio the Muse 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing Winston Churchill and Buffy Summers weren't Nietzsche fans. Clarityfiend 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the ill effects of cruelty is that it makes bystanders cruel." - Thomas Fowell Buxton.

Explain that and if there's any truth to it. PitchBlack 00:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one too:

"One of the effects of a Reference Desk on Wikipedia is that people will post homework questions." - Kainaw

Explain that and if there's any truth to it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One example would be the claim that watching violence on TV and in movies makes kids violent. StuRat 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a homework question. I passed by it on wikiquote and it got me thinking. I'd like to know if there's any psychological knowledge pertaining to that quote.

There is a paper by Victor Neil in the August 2006 journal Behavioural and Brain Sciences which may be pertinent to your inquiry. The full title is Cruelty's Rewards: The gratification of Perpetrators and Spectators. In essence it is an overview of cultural practices from the earliest times, focusing on the vicarious enjoyment of cruelty and pain. The capacity for cruelty, and the enjoyment of the suffering of others, is a constant if latent feature of the human psyche. Think of the spectators at the Roman arena; think of the pleasure derived from cinematic violence. It is possible to extend this analysis to look at the problem of evil and sadism in more general terms. The monstrous, in other words, is not abstract or 'other', but an immediate, internalized danger. Humanity's baser impulses have been superficially channelled and controlled by personal socialization and the super-arching structures of morality and law. These can, however, disintegrate, both at an individual and collective level. We know all to well from both contemporary politics, and from modern history, that cruelty and indifference, once released, can have devastating consequences. Clio the Muse 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Schadenfreude. --Wetman 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jesus Christ prejudice against homosexuals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heegoop (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My interpretation of the NT is that Jesus was prejudiced against no-one. -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no comments by Jesus about homosexuals in the Gospels. Certainly no negative comments. The only New Testament figure who showed prejudice toward homosexuals was Paul. Marco polo 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an atheist, I don't particularly care, but just to put the other side of the argument. Christians who believe Jesus supports their view that homosexual acts are sinful, point to his support for the continuation of Old Testament laws, which also took that view. Sorry I can't provide specific quotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is the distinction that actually matters. He may or may not have had things to say against homosexual acts, but he would not have been prejudiced against homosexuals personally. I know of no better exemplar of the philosophy of condemning sin but loving sinners. Not that I'm saying I agree that homosexual acts are sinful, but Jesus might have. JackofOz 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible makes it plainly obvious that homosexuality is a sin. In other words, something which God says is wrong:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev 20.13

That said, that doesn't mean Jesus was prejudiced against them. He wasn't prejudiced against anyone, that being the whole point of unconditional, and universal love. He can call their sexual orientation wrong, but still love them.

I might emphasise though, that most Christians wouldn't expect a gay person to go through the death penalty! (see quote) Being from the Old Testament, that has been more or less replaced by Jesus' offer of forgiveness, by his Crucifixion.martianlostinspace 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole bible is a translation of works that have been copied for centuries. Who is to say that its current form is what was actually written in the original? It takes just one prejudiced translator to get a prejudiced passage in the Bible. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MGM, there are ancient, hand-written copies of copies of copies... of what was written thousands of years ago. Suppose this message is copied by two people. Then those two copies are copied by two, and so on. After say, 30 "layers/generations", for want of a better word, (do you understand?) of such copying you would expect there to be differences in paraphrasing and fact - unless those copiers paid copious attention to their job. And Bible hand-copiers did, in Bible times. The proof of that is in the fact that there are very few differences on fact in the thousands of ancient manuscripts, and no major differences on doctrine. The copies (eg Book of Kells) which are quite obviously inaccurate aren't really used in day-to-day life by Christians. In other words, modern Bibles are as accurate as you can get translations of the most accurate ancient copies available.martianlostinspace 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just red his book about our ex President Slobodan Milosevic,but I cant find nothing about this author called Adam LeBor.I would like to found out something about him,because this book is very interesting —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.231.124 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He was born in London in 1961, and in addition to his biography of Milosevic he wrote Hitler's Secret Bankers and City of Oranges. You will find his website here [1]] Clio the Muse 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend and I are in a friendly arguement over which is better: France or Germany (and Switzerland/Austria). Could you give me some reasons that Germany is better or common rebuttals? Thanks!! Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question without a definite answer, or a precise conclusion, Reywas, you must know this yourself? I like French cheese but I prefer German sausage. I like French wine (I do!) but I prefer German beer (I don't really!). I like French painting but I prefer German music etc. etc. etc. I'm sure you get the picture. They are both great nations with some differences in style and presentation. Long may this continue, and long may our individual national identities be preserved from the horrors conceived in Brussels by the Eurocrats! Clio the Muse 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better in what sense? Military might? Economic power? International influence? Language use? --The Dark Side 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well some things, at least, can be quantified. By this measure, Germany is three times as good as France... ; ) Carom 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: as an inhabitant of multilingual Switzerville (as my spouse calls it), I take umbrage at being lumped in with Germany and Austria. As usual, we sit on three sides of the fence, depending on where our interests lie. And depending on who will be declared winner of this silly little contest, we can choose affiliation with our French, German, or Italian speaking neighbours. :-) --Sluzzelin talk 03:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia is somewhat better developed than the French Wikipedia. Ergo, the millions of people in the D-A-CH obviously trump the millions of people in the Francophonie intellectually, morally, and in basic library skills.--Pharos 08:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither French nor German (and neither a big fan of either country) yet even I was offended by that last post! Loomis 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm, Loomis! Sarcasm! Sarcasm specifically on the whole "better countries"/"worse countries" theory.--Pharos 21:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, I'm just rooting for the country whose language resembles mine the most :).Evilbu 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define resemblance! Sorry, you're Dutch... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ * (\ * (< * \) * (2 * /) * /)/ * 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Evilbu's Dutch, too. But we can't all belong to the greatest country in the world, I guess.  :) JackofOz 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Their beer.hotclaws**== 08:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there was Canadian senator who was removed from office because of his lack of attendance as require in the Canadian Constitution. Can you please give a name of such a senator.

You may be thinking of Andy Thompson, who was removed from the Liberal Party in 1997 after criticism of his poor attendance, and who resigned from the Senate a few months later. --Cam 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Baha'i Faith combine elements of Jainism, Heegoop, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.215.141 (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You could try looking at our articles on Bahai and Jainism. --Dweller 10:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of Bahá'í history implies that the answer to your question is probably "no", although there may be some similarities. --Dweller 10:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering (beware this is a random question) which font they use for Prada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.151.137.186 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

{{spoiler}} I just finished William Gibson's Count Zero and I'm a bit confused by something. I don't recall ever reading why Marly gets the idea to go see Wig up in the Tessier Ashpool cores. Does anyone know what actually leads her to go to space? Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To find the creator of the skull. That was her job.

Just before chapter 19 HYPERMART, Marly found a piece of paper with a phone number on it. That phone number was eventually traced to outer space in the Tessier Ashpool cores area. 220.239.111.146 10:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. I'll read that section over. Dismas|^(talk) 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where was the aryans native land and why they migrated to india? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.129.142 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a highly complex issue, subject to a considerable degree of scholarly debate. According to some the original home land was a large area in central Asia, spreading eastwards from the Caspian Sea, now associated with the bronze-age Andronovo culture, whereas others associate them with the Indus Valley Civilization. The issue is further complicated by debates over the expansion of Indo-Iranian languages or the expansion of peoples. It might be best for you to read the material available and try and form your own judgement. The pages most relevant to your investigation are the Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryan migration and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). Once you have had a chance to look at these please come back with any more specific questions you may have. Clio the Muse 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am looking for historic worldwide airline passenger numbers, ie, the total number of people who have flown worldwide in a recent year.

Thanks

Dear Wikipedia Humanities Help Desk:

I would like to submit a request for Wikipedia to add information on the female healing evangelist Kathryn Khulman. I was reading this area today and there was no information on Ms. Khulman. In an effort to prevent the loss of religious movements of God in the healing area that contribute substantially to the our humanities, please let me know how to submit information to your organization.

You noted in your information "Benny Hinn", John Wimber and Mr. Rossi. Benny Hinn was saved in Kathryn Khulman's Crusades and participated in her Crusades per his own personal testimonies. I think that the Religious Humanities of Wikipedia will be enriched by having such information available.

Since your instructions request that I do notsubmit and email or address I'm not sure how you are going to contact me. Nonetheless, you can contact The Kathryn Khulman Foundation in order to find out information on Evangelist Khulman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.172.8.11 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Did you perhaps mean Kathryn Kuhlman? Note the spelling of the last name. Dismas|^(talk) 09:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who was the female who healed the evangelist Kathryn Khulman? I don't think you mentioned her name. 220.239.111.146 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't because before this question, I didn't know the woman existed. Since you seem to know more about the woman than we do, judging by the lack of responses thus far, if you have information that would help the article and you can cite a source for that information, please add it to the article. Dismas|^(talk) 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no one has been abke to recreate a Mona Lisa?210.212.215.141 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid[reply]

This was answered earlier... 惑乱 分からん 11:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought there was a rumour that the last time it was stolen, a fake was returned?hotclaws**== 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

Oilsands developer Opti Canada Inc. has arranged for $67.5 million US of financing from Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for the Long Lake project. Opti has a call option for Goldman to pay that amount for either convertible preferred stock or common shares. Opti has said it plans to invest $560 million this year in Long Lake, a joint venture with Nexen Inc. The deal could leave Goldman Sachs with 15.1 per cent of Opti's common stock.

”

My question lies here, how do private equity firms decide who to finance? Would they finance a start-up company for $67.5 million? --Parker007 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert, but my sense is that most private equity firms look for companies with a proven revenue stream, which they use to convince investors that they will earn a return on their equity. Therefore, they are unlikely to want to purchase a start-up company. However, there is a subset of the private equity universe called venture capital. Venture capitalists specialize in investing in start-up firms with very compelling business plans. Marco polo 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding an often heard story about which brand is financing which party in the United States. So far, I have come across both stories: Coke financing the Republicans and Pepsi supporting the Democrats, but also Coke contributing to the Democrats and Pepsi spending money on the Republicans. I don't think that the color of their cans is a reasonable indicator, so what's true? Hardern 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how either US party would provide an advantage to one soft drink company over another. However, they both need to bribe both parties so they don't pass laws banning junk food vending machines (including soft drinks) from schools. Both companies giving to both parties will ensure that the legislators remain more concerned about getting this money than they are about children's health. StuRat 12:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardern, you will find some information here on 'cola politics' [2]. It is now several years out of date, but I imagine the basic patterns are much the same. Both companies are clearly hedging their bests, but Pepsi has a clear preference for the Republicans, expressed in financial terms, and Coke a slight preference for the Democrats. Clio the Muse 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that Pepsi would prefer Republicans while Coke prefers Democrats, because the areas where a majority prefer Coke tend to be "blue" (majority Democratic) states, while those where Pepsi is preferred tend to be "red" (majority Republican). The difference in funding could be explained by the difference in the composition of state legislatures that might ban each company's product in school vending machines. Marco polo 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can look it up yourself at www.opensecrets.org. Back when soft money was legal, both companies favored the GOP in soft-money donations -- Pepsi far more than Coke. More recently, in the 2006 election cycle, the Political Action Committees of both companies again favored the Republicans. -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey there everyone

I need help finding a project that will support the article i have recently created Borderfest i dont know what catagory this falls under weather it be history or culture. any help is much appreciated. Maverick423 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If stock markets (and other markets as well) are not predictable, what do good traders do? Is such a thing like a good trader or it is only good luck?Mr.K. (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of both. No trader will survive for long while investing like Steadman Funds, for example: [3]. StuRat 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every trading company that I know about uses computers to predict the flow of the market. Then, when the computer says "buy", they make up a reason to buy. When teh computer says "sell", they make up a reason to sell. The job of the stock analyst is to put a human face on the computer program. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they use a computer for that? There are other methods that are way much cheaper. Mr.K. (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for having a human in the loop is the same as the reason why there are still humans doing weather forecasting: a computer can spot patterns that a human cannot, and can handle far more complicated models than a human can. But a computer can only consider those factors it knows about, and only in the ways that it's been told to. --Carnildo 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock markets are predictable in the long term (10 years) and are predictable in the extreme short term (10 minutes). But anything between those two are not predictable. Assuming that there are no external disturbance of course. 202.168.50.40 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "not predictable" it's true, in the sense that any given hand in poker is not 100% predictable, but there are probabilities involved (in any given hand, and in the long run). Likewise, probability is involved in the stock market--one might be able to find "anomalies" and take advantage of them. Anomalies might not last long, or may come and go only during certain periods of time. A "good" trader might exploit these anomalies and search for others when they no longer "work". Someone might be "lucky" to stumble upon a little known anomaly, or may be "lucky" to get a good string of winning anomalies. More likely, a discerning mind, discipline, and good risk management are more important than luck. Patsup 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could say a 'good trader' makes money, a bad trader does not. The film Wallstreet (film) has a small part with an older-character who says something along the lines of "the greedy trades come and goes with every bull and bear market but the real investor comes through them all" (probably a mile off but something like that). Indeed it is an excellent film on the subject (as is Boiler Room). It is a subjective question but I thing a good trader invests in companies and a bad trader 'plays' the market. One is investing money to help a firm succeed and is truly 'part owning' the firm (symbolically and actually), whereas the other is investing in that firm's marketplace perception and thus is investing in trader-confidence/mentality - perhaps uninterested in the firm itself, but rather more interested in its market price. Of course both will plausibly help the firm to operate, but I personally prefer the more 'romantic' notion of investing in a business you belief in rather than investing in 'the market' for a quick-gain.ny156uk 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.134.183.30 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Probably find that at Barack Obama. Notice the sign at the top? It says search first. Actually you'll find it in the 2nd paragraph!martianlostinspace 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was opposed to the Iraq War, and probably—but don't take my word for it—opposed to the war in Afghanistan. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,but Martianlostspace,you are not right,second paragraph doesnt mention Afganistan at all!!!! So he opposed war in Iraq, like so many other politicians, but what Im interested in is if he opposed war in Afganistan as well?? Because everyone with a half of brain could have seen that Iraq war is not justified,but what is he opinion on Afganistan,or better yet,what WAS his opinion back in 2001??

Thank you very much,once again¬¬¬¬

One might fairly ask how relevant his opinion was three years before assuming federal office. Contrasting (for example) Hillary's voting record with Obama's stated opinions isn't a fair comparison to either; one acts as a public servant while the other acts as a private citizen. — Lomn 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (oops, swapped second "public" to "private")[reply]

As far as I know, not one mainstream American politician has publicly opposed the war in Afghanistan (though many have criticized its manner of execution). I presume Obama is not an exception.--Pharos 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obama wanted Osama but not Saddama? Oh mama, what drama! --02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Iraq. My mistake!martianlostinspace 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excatly Lomn,you have just answered my question when you said "Not one mainstream American politician has publicly opposed it". They want us to believe that Obama is not a mainstream politician,while it is quite clear that he is as mainstream as Hillary or Edwards. So, it seems that only reverend Sharpton and Jesse Jacskon opposed war in Afganistan.Still,because they are not "mainstream",they can never win an election. Thank you everybody,and so much for Obama "being different"81.134.186.93 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just finishing my second Alice Bailey Book, Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle. What I would like to know is, If one were to study ALL the world religions for 100 years each one would still not have the amount of spiritual information found in one of her books, so how did she come by it?

I know that she SAID she was given the information by Djwak Khul telepathically, Butin reallity, scientifically, this is not possible.

Further more, is theosophy a religion, a belief system, fact, or a cult?

Once again, how can anyone have aquired all this knowlege, everything from exactally hat the human soul is to how human days corespond to biblical days and then days for god and how many of each fit into each other, and then go on to prove it, as they seem to do? HOW?! Please help me, this is going to drive me insane!

Further more, is theosophy a religion, a belief system, fact, or a cult?

Well to kick us off, here's the article: theosophy. You might find your answer there.

How can anyone have aquired all this knowlege?

Please tell us a bit about exactly what "this knowledge" exactly is... I'm not familiar with the book. As for the time dilemma, I'm not an expert there either: but there is ample evidence of that in the Bible. I mean, that God's sense of any kind of measurement (eg. distance) is totally unlike the human understanding.

Sorry I haven't been able to tell you much, but it's the best of a bad situation!martianlostinspace 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a cult to me... Surely she must have received criticism? 惑乱 分からん 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alice Bailey has more, including a section on criticism. Wareh 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get a very small portion of this knowlege, please see my user page, as it has something there.Xnton 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement is personal, but allows acquisition of knowledge. It isn't just hearing the truth, but recognising it. Luckily, over thousands of years, people have channeled much of their lives to making difficult issues simpler. There is much that is truth in Shakespeare, and re reading the material allows one to learn something new, so that one might never stop learning in a lifetime. Yet an actor can take a Shakespearian role, and may be studied in their role, and more may be learnt from that role than might be learnt in a lifetime. Did the actor live those lifetimes to learn the role?

We learn, seeing far, but sitting on the shoulders of giants. We don't have to spend our lives in contemplation, but to learn, we must think, and exercise judgement. DDB 11:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very simple question: If the original Constitution, stored in the National Archives, were destroyed by fire, would our system of government be in any way altered? That is, is the Constitution a foundation of government, without regard to the physical document? 66.213.33.2 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US government would not be altered. — Lomn 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'd miss the document, I suppose. But no, nothing would change in law, because law isn't preserved in and only in wood pulp. In fact, as the preamble (hah) to our article on United States Constitution makes clear, the one on display is, as noted in that article, just a COPY. The original is...um...in our air, or embodied in our very system, or something.  :-) Jfarber 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a very poorly worded section of the text. The National Archives web site makes it very clear that the parchment on display is the original. — Lomn 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Jfarber is saying is that the physical document doesn't really matter as long as we have the words and meaning of the Constituion. So, to answer the original question, it would be a national travesty to lose the original Constitution, but there would be no real legal repercussions. Zidel333 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but more: I think it's important to note that the physical document is not the same as "the Constitution". The Constitution is the words and meaning, not a particular incidence of those words in writing.

The National archives display the piece of parchment on which those words were typed (and their site, Lomn, is careful to note that the original "engrossed parchment" is on display; I can find nothing on that site about the original Constitution being on display); it is that incidence OF the Constitution which was signed. But this was certainly NOT the first time those words all appeared in one place, on one page -- our own article notes that the parchment was prepared by Jacob Shallus, an engrosser/penman "whose hand-written copy of the Constitution hangs in the US National Archives" -- from which we can reasonably assume that Shallus was given the exact text, just not in the nice font, thereby making it impossible for us to claim that this engrossed copy is in any way an original. Signed, yes. Neat and formal, yes. Revered, yes. Original, no.

This isn't just semantics. It is to demonstrate that, if someone were to destroy the parchment, they would not BE destroying the Constitution; as the Constitution is a set of language existing in the culture itself, the only way to destroy the Constitution is via some sort of mass sociopolitical process. This discussion is, as such, an answer to BOTH the original TWO questions, one which provides evidence for why the answer must be "no" and "yes", in that order. Jfarber 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that there a few original copies. Newspapers printed copies the same or next day. The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA can tell you more accurately. As a lawyer who took a special oath to uphold the Constitution, I believe the Constitution is the text itself and living meaning generations of Americans confer on it.75Janice 01:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)75Janice 6 March 2007[reply]

True, but as your second sentence reinforces, there is a big difference between the original and the "original copies." Also, of course, newspaper print isn't going to hold the same sentimental value as the parchment with all the signatures on it. Jfarber 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically in the West, we start a new acquaintance with a question like "What do you do?" (ie. what job). Amongst Australian Aboriginal people, the usual question is "Where are your people from?" Amongst Baha'is, our first question is typically "Which community are you from?" Are there any cultures or countries that have their own interesting introductory question? What is it in the Middle East? What would the first question have been in Europe in the Middle Ages? The Mad Echidna 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the modern "Ni hao ma?" in Chinese, which simply means "Are you good?", there is "Ni chi fan le ma?", which means "Have you eaten rice lately?" By "eaten rice", they actually mean "had anything to eat". --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the vaguely countercultural milieu that I inhabited in San Francisco in the 1990s, "What do you do?" was considered in very poor taste, because it served to size people up in terms of class and also because what people happened to do for money was not what they wanted to define them. Typical questions instead would be "What kinds of things are you interested in?" or "What's your scene?" Marco polo 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, "ogenki desu ka" is often used, "are you healthy?", though genki can also be translated as vigour or energy. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing a Dutch person would ask, independent of whether you know some one, "hoe gaat 't ermee" (or something of those lines) which means "how do you do" which is also the thing English say against each other upon meeting each other. The standard reaction would be "prima" ("fine") while saying that you are not doing well, even if you are, is considered bad manners. C mon 23:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are high up north in the Netherlands, where I live. If you are doing fine up here, you say "het kon minder", meaning "it could have been worse" :) Aecis^Brievenbus 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australians often have a similar reply, "Not bad", or even "Not too bad" (which, if you think about it, is a triply negative statement). I try to remember to say "Very well, thanks" (even if that's a complete lie). JackofOz 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In countries like New Zealand which have a large immigrant population and high tourist numbers, a common first question is "Where are you from?", often (if the answer is not local) followed by "How long have you been here?" Grutness...wha? 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is common even within cities with high immigrant populations. I heard very similar phrases when I was in Honolulu for a rather long stay and now that I live in Charleston. Most people (including myself) are "from off", implying that they are "from off the peninsula". Very few are "fron on" - but those that are consider themselves a higher class than everyone else. So, they often ask "are you from off?" --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the UK it could be "What team do you support?" ha hahotclaws**== 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was a kid in the UK, "Are you looking at me or chewing a brick?" was popular in certain contexts. (either way you lose your teeth is the implication) --Dweller 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Southern Europeans / Latin people so passionate, in conversation and views and more so sexually? Is it a genetic / physical or more cultural thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qiyamah (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Or sterotyped thing? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ * (\ * )< * \) * (2 * /) * /)/ * 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether Southern Europeans are really more passionate sexually. As for conversation and mannerisms, it is certainly cultural and not physical or genetic. Genetic differences among human populations are very small, and neighboring peoples such as the northern Italians and the neighboring German-speaking Alpine peoples (or the northern Greeks and Balkan Slavs) are virtually indistinguishable genetically. Marco polo 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as sexually is concerned it's definitely not cultural; my long-term girlfriend was born in the UK to Portuguese parents, and grew up there, and outwardly she is very reserved as an English girl would be. Sexually though, she is definitely more passionate than any other I've experienced.
So in a way, I've answered my own question: the conversation and mannerisms are cultural, the sexuality is physical. But... I'm still wondering, why? Qiyamah 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One subjective data point does not make a trend. I think "why is this anything other than stereotype?" remains an excellent and valid question. — Lomn 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I have had quite a few sexual partners. I have done so mainly in the United States, which is ethnically diverse, but also in Europe, including southern Europe. In my experience, there is absolutely no correlation between ethnicity and sexual passion. I have been with lethargic Latinos as well as wildly passionate people of Chinese or northern European origin, including a particularly wild episode with a young Englishman in London. 68.162.244.120 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my experience at all, Italian blood in my experience has been similar. I'll have to speak to someone educated in anthropology, thanks for the help though!Qiyamah 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a semi-famous quote I'm trying to remember, that goes something along the lines of:

"It would be a something world, a far somethinger world, to die in"

Or possibly "to live in", or something similar. But it's definitely something along those lines. Thanks. Sum0 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you want "It would be a stronger world, a stronger loving world, to die in," the title of the last chapter of Watchmen and a line from John Cale Algebraist 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it! I should have remembered it from Watchmen. Thanks. Sum0 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, there isn't really any "national identity". But we still manage to characterise it. We occasionally hear someone referring to something as "unAustralian" (the positive form is rarely used). This is usually supposed to mean that someone is not being very down to earth, or taking some minor issue too seriously, and refusing to be congenial. At other times, it is used in politics more vaguely (demonstrators have been called unAustralian for no apparent reason), but the presumed intention is reasonably similar. I've heard that in Singapore, to say something is "very Singaporean" is actually pejorative, and implies excessive interest in money. Is this true, and what is the case for other national identities (including throughout history if anyone knows)? The Mad Echidna 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the UK "It's not cricket" pretty much implies "It's not British"hotclaws**== 08:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means not playing according to the rules, and not behaving like a gentleman. It's a specifically English expression; and I imagine there are very few Scots or Irish people who use the term. We do say certain things are not English or not British, never that they are 'UnEnglish' or 'UnBritish.' However, the whole concept of national identity is such a complex issue in the British Isles, as people who have read the previous discussion on this very point will have gathered. Clio the Muse 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my experience "un-English" is used quite commonly in speech, although one would be unlikely to see it in writing. -- Necrothesp 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada there are a fair number of people who feel that overt displays of patriotism are kind of silly, but I think this attitude may have dimished somewhat in recent decades. In 1972 Peter Gzowski ran a contest where he referred to the phrase "As American as apple pie" and asked people to complete the expression "As Canadian as...". The winning entry... no, I won't spoil it here. Think a minute and then read the first item here. --Anonymous, March 7, 2007, 23:35 (UTC).

Thanks Anonymous - I never would have got that. The best I could come up with was "As Canadian as Minnesota." Minnesotans have voted Democrat for almost as long as I've been alive, are more supportive of gun control than most Americans, and aren't very receptive to the teaching of creationism in schools (I previously read this on the Wikipedia article, but most of the info seems to have disappeared, so apologies if it isn't true). They are also conveniently situated on the border. I should admit that having once elected Jesse Ventura puts them back a peg or two. The Mad Echidna 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to know what's so American about apple pie, a dish that has been around long before America existed as a concept, that can be found on most English pub menus, and that most English people would probably regard as being quintessentially English. I think the Dutch have a fair claim too! -- Necrothesp 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can someone help me? thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.250.177.134 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How about the Bible or the Qur'an? I've heard they touch on religious experiences. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Confessions of St. Augustine are particularly good: more practical than the City of God. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the classic The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. Marco polo 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Treatise on Cosmic Fire by Alice Bailey

It really depends how you wish to approach the whole question. Are you looking for books which analyse religious experience from a sociological or a philosophical perspective: or are you specifically interested in direct accounts of revealed truth, or individual experiences of revelation? Quite frankly, there are such a huge number of possible options that it is difficult for me to make specific suggestions. But on the assumption that you are looking for existential experiences, as opposed to more distanced forms of intellectual analysis, and also on the assumption that you are interested in Christian texts, I would suggest, in addition to Augustine, that you read The Life of St. Teresa of Avila by Herself Besides being deeply personal it's one of the great classics of Spanish literature. For a more general manual of devotion you could do no better that read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis. Clio the Muse 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lives of the Fathers by Saint Gregory of Tours is a nice piece of medieval hagiography. Especially fun if you enjoy farting dragons. --Dweller 12:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for an excellent introduction to Christianity, shorter, easier to read, and more entertaining than the Bible, I recommend C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. The Jade Knight 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]