Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 23

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.

July 23

"In God We Trust" on our money

I brought this up in class almost every year since middle school and I've never gotten GOOD answers on why we should keep it. I've even asked about taking the oaths at court.

Having all these god quotes around has to have an effect on people, especially children. It may completely alter someones behavior, so why do we keep it around? Ive already looked at some of the articles pertaining to this, and I'm dissapointed in the government for keeping it around just because "its tradition, and it has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state."

"Mommy, how do you know God is real?" "Well, sweety it says so right there in the Bible, and the Bible is God's word, and everything God says is true, so it must be true! And hey, if it wasnt true, why would the government have it on our money!?"

Just because this nation was founded on Christianity, doesnt mean centuries later we should continue the tradition. Were supposed to improve and not stick to primitive thinking. They need to put all that god stuff in the history books and start maturing.

Everyone holds and needs money, and its upsetting to own something that makes it seem like youre a certain way (believing in a deity). Taking it out will be a simple step to improving this nation, in my opinion anyway. But thats my rant, and I'd really like to hear peoples views on this. PitchBlack 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You could use credit cards. Well, but that wouldn't solve that child's problem. Anyway, I guess that in a few years no-one will use paper money anymore, so that problem will stop existing. A.Z. 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that, in Canada, they have been using debit cards more than cash for six years now. A.Z. 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia also features a section about the motto controversy. A.Z. 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note to non-Americans: This question is about the money they use in the USA.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Wow, that WAS kind of a rant. I always understand the "God" in question to be Mammon, which seems highly appropriate and self-referential: it's in the money itself that we trust. Thinking about it this way doesn't offend my tender atheist sensibilities, plus I've always felt that the Christian god wouldn't really be a fan of being so referred to on our currency; after all, it could lead to an unhealthy conflation of the ideas of god, money, and worship . My 2 cents. 38.112.225.84 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Theodore Roosevelt had a similar idea. 68.39.174.238 13:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the motto on the money is what causes people to believe or not to believe. I think it is easy for non-believers (myself included) to think of belief as a simple thing, you are told something and thus you believe it. In reality most people's understandings of religion come not from "mommy" saying they believe it and pointing to money or anything so trite; it is a deeper connection with tradition and ritual that reinforces beliefs. I don't think the slogan on the money makes any real difference (and I am an agnostic/atheist). That being said, I don't think there is a good reason it should be "kept" at all — it does nothing positive. I don't think it does a lot of negative, either, except reinforce the entanglement between religion and government in this country, but even with that I think it is a symptom not a cause. --24.147.86.187 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would ban it on money if I were in charge. While the god isn't specified, the belief that there is one and only one god is clear, which should upset atheists, agnostics, and members of polytheistic religions, like Hinduism. StuRat 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, but I think that the elimination of the slogan on US money would be a very slow process if the government (when could that be?) decided to do so. The number of bills in circulation today are in the hundreds of billions? trillions? i don't know exactly but... yeah. Marcocruz87 23:45, 24 July 2007

I'm not saying all the old money should be destroyed. I'd be happy to wait until it wears out naturally. StuRat 06:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In Engel v. Vitale, a very liberal Court said this practice wasn't unconstitutional. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 20:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The US was not founded on Christianity. That is just a myth that radical Christian right-wingers would have people believe so that they can try to justify going against the 1st Amendment and instituting theocracy. The founders of the country were strong believers in creationism, which is the the belief that there is a god that created the universe, but not necessarily a specific god (e.g. Jesus, Allah, etc.). Some were Christians, some were not, but regardless of their individual beliefs, the country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I don't have too much of a problem with the motto on the money, since the founders did not mean for it to be an endorsement of Christianity. The problem is really with radical conservatives taking that motto out of context and using it to try to justify establishing a Christian theocracy. The Pledge of Allegiance, on the other hand, I believe should have the words "under God" removed, because it did not originally contain them. This phrase was added sometime during the 1950s, and ironically, radical conservatives try to make people feel that having them removed is somehow a slap in the face of the founders. Go figure.--67.67.216.252 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

World War I Newspaper archives?

Good morning. I'm looking for a website (or a handful of websites) which contain archives of newspapers from WW1. Specifically, I'd like "well-known" papers like the Times, etc. I figure they'll be in the public domain, following the 70 years after death rule. Any ideas?

Thanks very much.

203.173.11.176 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)ThePatchedFool

They are public domain, yes, but unfortunately those that have been digitized have mostly been so under restricted pay-for-access systems. It would be possible to extract these materials and host them on a free system, but so far this has not been done. To access this common history, you'll mostly have to go through a university or a library account (on microfilm in libraries too of course), which is a real shame IMO.--Pharos 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a shame, but unless you have access to a research library (or a major public library), you're pretty much out of luck with regards to major papers like the Times and so forth. EDIT: This information applies to the USA, but I see that you reside in Australia, so it may not be all that relevant. I don't know what kind of subscriptions Australian libraries carry, or how easy it may be for you to access materials held by a university. Carom 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that might be the case. I probably do have access to microfilms of the Australian papers of the time, through the State Library, but it's sad that they're not digital, and I was hoping for a more international collection of perspectives. Still, I'll investigate that. Thanks for the idea, and for furthering my Googletrust. 203.173.11.176 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if by any chance you're a university student, you probably do have access to these collections.--Pharos 06:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Many old microfilm newspaper archives are digitized, but you are charged for the service of using them (not a copyright issue). ProQuest Historical Newspapers does this for US newspapers, I'm not sure who would do it for Australian ones. --24.147.86.187 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out List of online newspaper archives. -- Mwalcoff 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends what you're hoping to find out, but it is worth bearing in mind that there were considerable restrictions on what newspapers could and/or were willing to report during the war period. This did not only affect military matters but also domestic dissent and anything likely to undermine morale or prove useful to the enemy. I've looked at The Times for the period, for various matters, and while it is by no means not worth looking at for the war period, it is clear that supporting the war effort was a bigger concern for the editors than providing an exhaustive historical source during 1914-18... 84.13.129.105 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder where printing blank pages of the appropriate length when forbidden to print lists of the dead fits into supporting the war effort or providing an exhaustive historical source? :) Sorry, not meaning to pick, just that it may have been more the government than the editors responsible for the lack of content. 86.140.170.177 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In Britain, self-censorship by mainstream newspapers was extremely prevalent and more important overall than Government-imposed censorship. There wasn't an existing framework for, or tradition of, press censorship in Britain in 1914. The Liberal adminstration was initially reluctant to go too far towards compulsion, which conflicted with Liberal ideology and the image of a free and liberal Britain stading against Prussian authoritarianism which was used to promote the war effort. Nor was there much of a need to impose censorship as mainstream newspapers were not prepared to rock the boat, while the small number of radical / revolutionary papers opposing the war were deemed too uninfluential to be worth the trouble and bad publicity of censoring or suppressing. This only changed gradually, and mainly from 1916 onwards, with the Russian Revolution and growth of dissent in 1917 being important turning-points. Yet overall, self-censorship by the press continued to outweigh the heavy hand of government. I'm basing this on Brock Millman's "Managing Domestic Dissent in First World War Britain", (Frank Cass, London, 2000), which is the first and latest in-depth examination of the subject. Not to pick, but what are you basing your comments on 86.140.170.177? 84.13.129.105 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was basing my single comment on the fact that British newspapers initially printed lists of the war dead; these grew quite long. Then the government forbade them to print lists of the dead, so they included as much empty space as would have been taken up by the lists of the dead. This is part of the GCSE World History syllabus of at least some exam boards, so I would image it to be fairly well known. I wasn't disputing your scholarship, just asking how this could fit into an image of newspapers censoring themselves for the war effort, without any compulsion. It suggests a more complicated image than had been painted in the earlier comments, an image of rather more rebellious editors. 86.140.170.177 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Judges

Are all judges arrogant? - CarbonLifeForm 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, at any rate not more so than all other government officials or highly educated professionals are. Sandstein 07:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive generalisation. Judges may have a stereotype of being rather boring, but most of us will barely meet a judge in our lifetime (I would think), at least out of court.martianlostinspace 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of us wouldn't know if we had met a judge. They mostly live ordinary lives outside court. One lives a few doors down the street from me, and she is very nice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all RD questions as useless and unanswerable? 68.39.174.238 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact many of them are interesting and informed. Lanfear's Bane

Some judges are arrogant. Some are not. I've known a few judges (a close family member is a lawyer). They did haven't any single exceptional stereotypical qualities. --24.147.86.187 14:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think CarbonLifeForm==XM and he's annoyed that his crazy gambits to get out of his parking ticket didn't work and it's clearly the judge's arrogance that's to blame? Donald Hosek 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Donald Hosek -- that thought crossed my mind, also. But, if I remember correctly, XM stated that his court date for the speeding ticket was not until August. So he still has time to stew. Ha ha. (JosephASpadaro 05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Based on the theory that "power corrupts", one would expect those with the most power to be the most corrupt, which includes, in my opinion, the arrogance of thinking they are always right. From what I've seen of judges on TV (and the legal profession in general), I haven't been very impressed. There's that crying judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case, for example, and everyone involved in the O.J. Simpson case. Those real judges in TV court shows also seem arrogant, deciding who is guilty based on appearance, refusing to hear all the testimony, or interrupting people during their testimony, then having a fit if they are ever interrupted. The ultimate arrogance seems to be the attitude that "if I decide someone is guilty, then they are". They seem to forget that whether the event occurred is an actual truth that exists outside the courtroom, instead thinking that they decide what reality will be. I cringe when I hear "they are guilty", after a ruling, when it should be "the court found them to be guilty" (whether correctly or incorrectly). StuRat 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

long books

I was wondering what the longest fictional story ever published was. I think it might be the Wheel of Time, but obviously I haven't seen every book ever written. So I thought, maybe someone here will know. And your list on here isn't much help. So, anyone know of any longer stories? 172.189.174.82 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of longest novels has some contenders. Sandstein 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a basic problem of definition here. Many "long novels" are actually novel cycles. This would presumably apply to The Wheel of Time which you mention, also to things like A Dance to the Music of Time, The Lord of the Rings and even A La Recherche du Temps Perdu. So, do these count as novels or not? Personally, I would say not. Then there are things like Clarissa, which personally gets my vote as the longest novel in English. Then of course there are many long unpublished novels such as The Story of the Vivian Girls by Henry Darger, plus (I would have thought) countless others yet to be discovered. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the Lord of the Rings and A La Recherche du Temps Perdu were both originally written as a single book, but were too long to be published in one volume. whilst 'novel cycles' might not count as novels due to their being made up of more than one book, they still have the same plot running all the way through, and are therefore the same story.

Well, The Tale of Genji certainly SEEMED like the longest novel to me. --S.dedalus 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, that's always the book I think of when this comes up too. Recury 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Khruschev's denunciation of Stalin

I would like to know something of the background, motivation, impact and consequences of Khruschev's 1956 speech denouncing Stalinism. The page On the Personality Cult and its Consequences is not quite as informative as I would have wished. Thanks. Fred said right 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He was trying to exorcise the incubus of his dead master, whom he had served for so long, yet without calling into question the structure of the whole regime. Donald Treadgold.martianlostinspace 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To begin with it should be noted that the whole speech was built on the oddest of paradoxes: a denunciation of Stalin's personality cult and authoritarian style by a man who had spent the three years since the dictator's death in undermining collective ledership, and establishing his own unparalleled power! By the time of the 20th Congress, in other words, Khruschev's political authority was almost as great as that previously enjoyed by Stalin.

Delegates at the Congress were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which must have left those present highly perplexed. On the 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled secret session had been called for the Soviet delegates.

The speech itself began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the "supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god." Khruschev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. He himself had been guilty of what was, in essence, a distortion of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. The attention of the audience was then drawn to Lenin's Testament, copies of which had been distributed, criticising Stalin's 'rudeness'. Further accusations, and hints of accusations, followed, including the suggestion that the murder of Sergey Kirov in 1934, the event that sparked of the Great Terror, could be included in the list of Stalin's crimes. While criticising the Man, Khruschev carefully praised the Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. The Party, in other words, had been a victim of Stalin, not an accessory to his crimes. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of the personality and return to "the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society."

So, what were his motives? Was it really a call for a return to Leninist 'collective leadership' destroyed by Stalin? Well, here we have to remember that Lenin himself had only called for collective leadership in his final days, in the belief that no single individual was fit to follow in his singular path. Khruschev himself, moreover, had, as I have said, effectively destroyed the new forms of collectivity that emerged after Stalin's death in 1953. In a sense, the Secret Speech was his own triumphal declaration, and he used it to undermine still further some senior Soviet politicians, including Georgy Malenkov and Kliment Voroshilov. The implication was clear enough: he was innocent and the rest were guilty, though the simple truth was that he was just as bloody as any of the others. He was simply shifting the burden of responsibility. Exempting himself and blaming others: the whole speech was not about principles and ideals-it was about politics, and it was about power. Khruschev had to demolish Stalin to establish his own imperium; Augustus had to give way to Tiberius. It may be of passing interest to make note of the fact that Stalin's portrait continued to hang in Khruschev's office long after 1956, as a kind of spiritual avatar. And those who took the speech at face value were soon to face the simple truth that the ideal was not reborn. Clio the Muse 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading Khruschev: The Man and His Era by William Taubman. It discusses the "Secret Speech" in detail. -- Mwalcoff 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the result worldwide, it had the effect of causing disenchantment among many of the former "true believers" in communism, such as in the United States. This finally made it clear, even to the most naive, that communism didn't produce the utopia that it promised. Skeptics, of course, had known this for quite some time. StuRat 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated two passages from Clio's reply into our stubby page about 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Walt Streightiff - who is he?

Hi - I have been wanting to use a quote for a website project, but want to know more about the guy who said it before I actually use the quote... All I can find out is that he was a writer and probably American!

Walt Streightiff - “There are no seven wonders of the world in the eyes of a child. There are seven million.”

Can anyone help please?

Walt Streightiff (if it's the same one) was my first editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 1959. An ideal mentor for a young reporter: kindly but exacting. If Walt didn't mark up your copy, it was probably OK. He did forbid me, in weather stories, to forecast warmer or colder temperatures, since "temperatures" couldn't feel the heat, only register it. I believe Walt came to us from Harrisburg, Pa., where he had been bureau chief for the AP. Nice man. I never once thought of him as a writer. Good for him if so.

DAN SULLIVAN

Minneapolis MN

[telephone number removed per RefDesk policy]

Voting Rights of US Citizens

Having read the entry for Washington DC, and then read the US Constitution, I remain unclear how over 500,000 people in the US capital area are without the right to vote (other than for municipal elections). I understand that Washington is a 'District', but why can residents not be able to vote in a neighbouring state? I rather liked the comment on a common bumper sticker proclaiming "Taxation without Representation" considering the basic premise of the founding of the US nation. Can anyone explain the constitutional, political or personal benefits of this situation? JonM267 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Residents didn't have the right to vote since its Founding, as DC was the seat of the Federal Government (per the US Constitution Article one, Section 8 which outlines the Powers of Congress). DC was seen be impartial, as the home of the Legislature, it was supposed to have no political leanings to protect its dignity and integrity. However, its populations always hated never being able to vote, and in 1961, the 23rd Amendment was passed that gave DC residents the ability to vote in Presidential elections and have 3 votes in the US Electoral College. They also get Delegates to Congress who represent them in the US House of Representatives (But not the US Senate), but cannot outright vote on any pending laws or in any of the Congressional committees. There has been some discussion of giving DC Voting Rights, but this is usually blocked by the Republican Party/Conservatives as it would give the Democrats/Liberals another vote as DC is primarily Blue due to it's minority, and Left leaning population. As for voting in a neighboring state, that would be Unconstitutional due to State Laws; each state runs itself and itself alone. On top of this, it is all complicated as DC is run both by a city wide government, and Congress on occasion. For more info, see District of Columbia voting rights. BTW, I'm from the DC area, and the license plate reference was a way to raise recognition of the DC voting issue. Most people realize it's unfair, and want them to vote, but DC is a Federal district, and as such cannot as it is not a State per se. Personally, I think it one of the great flub ups of the US Founding Fathers, no matter their logical reasons. Whew! I hope this helps.  Zidel333 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. Along with your references it clears much of my confusion. I suppose there must be many strange and unusual repurcussions from having to follow (without too much question) a set of rules now over 200 years old, drawn up by primarily English landed gentry who were probably both trying to be fair and just to the citizens, and also protect their own social and financial positions at the same time. They did not do too bad a job all things considered.JonM267 21:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I might add, albeit an obvious point, that Congress constitutionally only recognises states: the Senate 2 Senators per state (regardless of size) and the House dependent upon population, though every state must have at least one Congressman. The USA, at the time of the Constitution, did not rule many territories (eg. Alaska, before statehood), and as far as DC was concerned, I think the founders may have intended a seat of government, not a city. Why should the federation reputed to be the world's most democratic country deny voting rights to half a million citizens? This seems like a logical answer.martianlostinspace 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been on this site for sometime,but could not pass your question up. The real reason could be that the city of DC was comprised mostly of servants both black and white. I'd venture a guess that some unknown servant asked his master about voting rights and the political climate allowed for the passage of the only known and constitutional abridgement of basic US citizen rights. None of this will ever be proved of course, but think about it. It was chic.

In response to the above comment, I have NEVER heard of this before; the truth of DC Voting Rights lies in the intention of making a city purely for governmental use, and not for residence per se. Frankly, the above comment is nonsensical, since DC at its inception was decided to never be allowed to vote. Racial tensions had nothing to do with it. Zidel333 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always objected to the idea of DC becoming a state, since many counties in the US are larger geographically and have many times the populations, and are not states either. Giving this enclave 2 Senators and a representative would give them disproportionate overrepresentation. If they want to be in a state, the DC should revert to being a county of the state of Maryland. But that state apparently does not want it. Edison 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from District of Columbia voting rights and simple logic, there are other options. For example, you could given them a seat in the US house of representatives without being a state (which appears to be one of the proposals). You could given them a Senator without a seat in the house of representatives. You could give them one of each. I don't see why you have to make them a state and give them all the rights of a state... P.S. Having only one senato would I assume do away with the need to have the vice-president ready for tie breakers which may be wise given that there appears to be some confusion by the current one whether the tie-breaker role makes him not a member of the executive Nil Einne 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, according to Washington, D.C., the population is 580k and they would be the 50th smallest in terms of population (also see List of U.S. states by population). They wouldn't really be that much smaller then quite a number of other states in terms of population. Of course, it may seem unfair that they have the same number of Senators as California with a population of 36 million but isn't that the nature of the US federal system? Personally, not being an American, I would have to say I see little reason they shouldn't be a state or at least have equivalent voting rights other then the fact that certain politicians may not want to give voting rights to those they know don't tend to support them. Nil Einne 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You meant 50th or 50th largest (of 51). --Anonymous, July 25, 23:51 (UTC).

De Natura Deorum and the Infinite Monkey

Can anyone familiar with Cicero point me to the actual sections in De Natura Deorum that ended up as the precursor (kind of) to the infinite monkey theorem?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this from Book II, section XXXVII:

Is it possible for a man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous discourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall in such a fashion as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no colour, no quality-which the Greeks call 'poiotes', no sense? or there are inummerable worlds, some rising and some perishing, in every moment of time? But if the concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty? Clio the Muse 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wonderful, Clio, thanks Adambrowne666 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC) - although, on reflection, is he arguing against the infinite monkey thing? - is he saying it's so unlikely that atoms of themselves can create a world that gods must've done it?

It's certainly an argument against particular patterns emerging by random chance. His word game example has the same general implications as the infinite monkey fallacy. Clio the Muse 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I think calling it the infinite monkey 'fallacy' is a bit strong, infinity is a big number, I'm sure the monkey thing would work. I wonder what Cicero would make of quantum mechanics. Cyta 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Theory places no limits on the possible, but my imagination is limited to what is, I must confess. After all, Cyta, I am a material girl and this is a material world! On monkeys and literature, I saw a pocket cartoon in The Spectator which may have some passing relevance here. Two men in lab coats standing behind a single monkey with a single typewriter. "Good Heavens", first man says to second, "he's typed out the complete works of Jeffrey Archer" Now that is one possibility I will accept! Clio the Muse 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always been told by my mathematics professors that infinity is not a number. --Taraborn 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yet again, Clio - sorry, but could you point me to the 'word game example'? Adambrowne666 10:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when Clio says "word game example" she just means Cicero's analogy of throwing letters on the ground. Interestingly, the passage from Cicero also reminded me of William Paley's watchmaker analogy - and I found that our watchmaker analogy article does indeed quote another passage from De natura deorum Book II. Gandalf61 10:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, I see, thanks for that. Makes me think of Fred Hoyle's analogy: expecting a mammalian cell to be created by chance is like expecting a gale to blow through a scrapyard and create a Jumbo Jet. Thanks again, Clio - the quote's perfect for what I need - and thanks Gandalf. Adambrowne666 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad. Gandalf was quite right about my meaning. My apologies for the confusion, Adam. Clio the Muse 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of balance, note that (i) argument by analogy is a useful rhetorical device but an unreliable method of reasoning; (ii) Paley's watchmaker analogy is used as an example in our false analogy article; (iii) there are crucial logical flaws in the whole category of teleological arguments. Gandalf61 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Adambrowne666

Killing slaves

In which, if any, societies with legal slavery would (a) killing one's own slave have been legal and (b) killing someone else's slave have been considered a property crime with the victim being the slave's owner? NeonMerlin 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, slavery law, what fun! Well, in any society based on Roman law, I don't think the penalty for killing someone else's slave is ever capital punishment. In sets of laws I have at hand (the Assizes of Jerusalem, the Lex Burgundionum, the Lex Salica, and the Edictum Rothari - the latter three compiled by Katharine Fischer Drew as The Burgundian Code, the Laws of the Salian Franks, and The Lombard Laws respectively) the punishment is always monetary compensation to the owner of the slave. However, I think killing your own slave was perfectly legal, although you probably wouldn't want to do that, as it would be your own financial loss (I can't find a specific reference to this at the moment, but I think that is true at least for ancient Rome, and probably also for any society, since you tend to be able to do whatever you want to your own property). Adam Bishop 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that’s not entirely true. In modern times there are numerous laws which limit what people can do with their property. Animal rights laws would be one example for instance. --S.dedalus 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The rights of slaves in the US existed on paper in the various slave-holding states, but were not often observed by legal process. There were laws against maiming or killing slaves. There were laws which specified what clothing and food slaves were entitles to, and their working hours. But no slave (or freedman) could testify against an owner. Thus if a man beat, starved, and mutilated his slaves, another white man would have to actually witness it and file a complaint with the court. If the cruel owner did it in the privacy of his own farm, no one would see it except the slaves and his family and employees and persons he permitted on the property, so no one was likely to bring court proceedings. The affected slave or other slaves could not testify at the proceedings. Then the court would determine if the complaint was justified, and could fine the slave owner or could order the slaves sold to remove them from his ownership. These laws were on the same notion as animal cruelty laws: that it was an affront to public order to see a man whipping his horse to death in the public square. But "chastisement" or "correction" was proper, so a slave owner could whip a slave for insolence, for refusal to work, for stealing or for attempting to escape, just as a mule driver would use a whip to get the animal to pull a load. There was not even a theoretical legal protection against an owner raping a slave, or selling the children or spouse of a slave. It is very hard to find cases where any such protective law was put into effect. That said the treatment of slaves varied from appalling to the equivalent of hired hands or family or a sharecropper, depending on the location and the inclination of the owner. Some were paid for their work and could save enough money to purchase their freedom. Cruelty might be repaid by the slave poisoning the owner or burning down the owner's house while he's sleeping or simply running away. He culd not run a plantation like a Nazi concentration camp unless he had fences and guards like such an establishment. Certainly killing someone else's slave would have been a crime and the owner could sue for the value, the same as if the offender had deliberate burned down a barn. Slaves were extremely expensive. Edison 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Atlantic slave trade and Middle Passage. Corvus cornix 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for more info on Roman slavery, where it was legal or illegal or semi-legal or extra-legal to kill your own and/or someone else's slave at different points in Roman history, try the entry for "Servus (Roman)" in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, here. Adam Bishop 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mad Old Men

I am trying desperately to figure out where I have seen or read this scene before: a man is in the house of an older man or woman who's describing their daughter, and explaining that she's on her way to the house. Then they step into the light and with a gesture of horror the first man realizes that this person is insane, and then they have to escape because his daughter died years ago. It's driving me quite mad, so thanks for anyone who can remember it. 12.196.69.214 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Sounds a little Great Expectationsy? Lanfear's Bane

I cannot tell you precisely what this is, though I can tell you what it is not-and that is Great Expectations! Your outline, Melancholy Danish, does remind me slightly, very slightly, I have to stress, of a story by Saki Clio the Muse 00:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Echoes also of They by Rudyard Kipling (collected in Traffics and Discoveries). DuncanHill 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

...and then they have to escape because his daughter died years ago. Ooops. it would help if I had read that part a little more closely. A strikethrough to cover my blushing. Lanfear's Bane

Without more help, it is difficult to pinpoint as it is an old plot twist. It was already panned as an old trick when "mother" in Psycho turned out to be dead. -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, is the daughter coming by hitchhiking? —Tamfang 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds similar, but in some ways almost the opposite, of the Saki story "The Open Window." In that story a young woman convinces a visitor that her father and brother died years ago, and then they turn up alive causing the visitor to flee in terror. - SimonP 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And that is just the story I had in mind! Clio the Muse 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, "The Open Window"! One of the funniest stories ever :) 12.196.69.214 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish