Humanities desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 9 >

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.

September 8[edit]

philosipher who theorized that mandkind was created by "children gods"[edit]

Many years ago I read of a philosipher who theorized that mandkind was created by "children gods", who became board and abandoned their creation. I would like to re-visit this philosipher's work, but can not find any information on this theory.

Any help will be appreciated. --Davdum (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are going to be lots of things that fit your description. Any system involving a demiourgos, including Plato and neoplatonism, fits the description of an imperfect subsidiary god that did the actual creation of the (universe, or earth). In particular, some gnostic systems feature a demiurge that abandoned the earth. Ialdabaoth seems to be a redirect; you should probably start off by reading our gnostic article. Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and archon might also be interesting. - Nunh-huh 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in Erik the Viking the gods are children. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loans from banks being sold[edit]

I was just reading about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it said:

Here's how they work: Banks loan money to home buyers. The banks then sell those mortgages - assuming they meet certain credit standards - to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Banks then use the money they get from the sale of those mortgages to make new loans. Fannie and Freddie, meanwhile, bundle those loans, attach a payment guarantee to them, and resell them as bonds.

I thought banks usually keep the loans. Dont you get a bill every month from your bank for your mortgage? Doesnt that mean they own the loan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the bank. Some banks do hold their own loans. Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much always make your payments to whoever originally lent you the money, but they will often forward that onto someone else. It's all done in such a way that you never need to know who actually owns your mortgage (it may well have been split between multiple people in weird ways - that's kind of where the trouble started!). --Tango (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain in more detail about how the loans are split inbetween multiple people and how the trouble started. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.110.7 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One benefit to banks of selling their loans to Freddie or Fannie (or somebody else) is that the bank frees up capital to make new loans. In theory, this bring in profit more quickly than hanging on to the old loan would. There's another effect as well: let's say you have a mortgage balance of $200,000 at 6% interest. Simplifying for the sake of the example (I'm ignoring amortization), your mortgage is an agreement to pay $1,000 a month for the next 30 years (that's the interest; you're also paying a few bucks toward the principle and some money for taxes and insurance).

To an investor, then, your mortgage is just an investment that will return $1,000 a month. If mortgage rates fall to 5%, I might be willing to pay more than the unpaid balance of your mortgage, because it's still going to bring me more money than buying a new, 5% mortgage will. Similarly, if mortgage rates rise to 7%, I'll pay less than the face value your mortage, and the current holder will sell it to me for less, so that the return on my investment gets closer to the 7% I could get from someone else. So there could be three mortgages that started exactly like yours, now held by three different investors; for each of them, the effective return on their own investment is different. You, meanwhile, and the other two people are still paying 6% on your $200,000 mortgage.

As with used cars, the value of your mortgage to an investor is what the investor is willing to pay for it.

As for the monthly bill for your mortgage, in many cases it's handled by a mortgage servicing company; they're just collecting your payment, making the necessary tax payments, and sending the interest to whomever now holds the mortgage. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details, but one of the ways the banks divided up mortgages was to group a whole load of mortgages together and then sell two types of contracts secured on those mortgages, a high risk and a low risk one. Each contract entitled you to a share of the returns, with the high risk ones getting a bigger share. Whenever someone defaults on one of the mortgages in the collection, the loss is taken by the high risk contracts, this means the low risk ones have virtually no chance of anyone defaulting. At least, that was the plan. Such large numbers of people ended up defaulting that the high risk contracts were completely used up and the (not so) low risk ones started to lose money. Everyone had assumed the low risk ones were safe and suddenly they weren't, and everything spiralled from there. (I'm sure it's all far more complicated than I make out and there were plenty of other causes, but that's one of them.) --Tango (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Securitization, Credit enhancement and Tranche for some details. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious symbology[edit]

What religions/beliefs/whatever do these symbols represent? I realize that the image is being used in an article about religion in science fiction and may not be strictly associated with just one religion but get as close to one belief system as you can, please. I originally only wanted to know #11 but I thought I'd expand my mind a bit more and just ask about them all. From 12:00 going clockwise:

Jain - symbol for the vow of ahimsa - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Red Baron ;-) - Lamba jan 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Cross pattée (Thanks 83.250) - Lamba jan 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hands of God - Lamba jan 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Triple Crescent - Lamba jan 04:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC) -- Taken from the Diane de Poitiers emblem... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sikh - Lamba jan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism - Lamba jan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) - (Ayyavazhi, see below)[reply]
Jain (again) or Hinduism. - swastika; some would call the counterclockwise version sauvastika - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism - Lamba jan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baha'i - Lamba jan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Norse (?) -- Sun cross -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) - used by astrology and pagans - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC). Although called "Sun cross", it's used by astronomers and astrologers to represent the Earth. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aum Primarily Hinduism - Lamba jan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Islam - star and crescent - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism - Star of David - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shinto - torii gate (O-torii)- Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity (general? or is it more specific?) Greek Cross - Lamba jan 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taoism - yin and yang - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure #11 is a Hindu symbol, and I think #7 is as well. The swatstika is a common symbol of luck in India, at any rate, so I presume it's from Hinduism. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number two is the Cross pattée, very similar to the Iron Cross (not the nicest connotations there), which is Christian, I guess (since it's associated with the Crusades) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't recognise number ten, but it does like faintly runic (although it's not part of the runic alphabet), so it might be Norse. However, much more common symbols for Norse paganism is Thor's hammer Mjölnir and the Valknut 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it appears to be a more general symbol for paganism. Also: kinda disappointing that there's no Klingon symbol in there :) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the last one: number four appears to be a wicca symbol. Most of these can be found at commons:Religious symbols, btw 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. I didn't even think to check commons for that. - Lamba jan 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, number six isn't Buddhism, it's Ayyavazhi, whatever that is :) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. My misconception is a common one. - Lamba jan 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a quasi-Buddhist lotus symbol, see Flag of Kalmykia... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a "reverse swastika" (卍, U+534D) is a Hanja symbol for "Bhuddist temple." --Kjoonlee 07:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another religion question[edit]

Is there a name for the idea that the Christian god, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods, etc are all subordinates under one even more powerful god? Dismas|^(talk) 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheism? - Lamba jan 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was wrong about that. Look at Monolatrism and Henotheism. - Lamba jan 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Gods is the concept you're looking for, I think. Although I don't really see how that applies to the Christian god, as he is the only one. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most belief systems with many gods don't hold them to be all equal and consider one to be the greatest. The Abrahamic conception holds God to be the only one. I could see how one would reason that you could put them together and say that Zeus refers to God or even Zeus is beneath God, or likewise but replace Zeus with Odin or Horace or whomever, but this only works within the framework of the other religions (or your personal concept of them), but the only way it could work within the framework of how the Abrahamic God is generally understood is by deciding that these other lesser gods were not (or should not be) regarded as gods but something else, perhaps tales personifying attributes of God or maybe prehistorical prophets of God or whatever. Regardless, it's hard to know exactly what conceptions followers of these religions had about the nature of their gods, but any idea you come up with is bound to meet an argument. More likely lots of arguments. Our data is more complete on some cultures over others. It might be an interesting thing to check into. - Lamba jan 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through all three articles suggested thus far and though they're close, none of them seem to state that the other gods, across all religions, answer to a higher god. Note the "across all religions" part. I'm not just referring to the ancient Greeks with Zeus as the head or to the ancient Egyptians with Ra as their head god. But a more supreme god who would rule over both of those plus all the other gods in every religion. And please, 83.250, keep your own religious views out of this. You're not going to convert me to Christianity just by waving your flag here. If anyone has read Job: A Comedy of Justice, that's where I'm mainly getting this question from. Dismas|^(talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, trust me, the last thing I'm trying to do is convert you to Christianity, I'm through and through atheist :) (and at a different computer, so I guess my IP will be different...). I'm fascinated by mythology, but I'm not in the least religious (and not in the least missionary, I try to convert no one to no set of beliefs). I misunderstood your question, and thought you were referring to pantheons where there are many gods subject to one chief god (like Odin is the head of the Aesir and Zeus is the head of the Olympians), and I was simply expressing my surprise that you included the Christian god in your list of examples, as the Christian faith preaches that he is the only God, and thus would not fit that mythological pattern.

As for the concept you are looking for, I think the closest thing to what you are referring to is pantheism, as suggested by User:LambaJan, which basically preaches that everything is an aspect of a supreme being of some sort. Look at this beautiful quote (which I'm borrowing from the Hindu section of the article):

This whole universe is Brahman, from Brahman to a clod of earth. Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the world. He is the potter by whom the vase is formed; He is the clay from which it is fabricated. Everything proceeds from Him, without waste or diminution of the source, as light radiates from sun. Everything merges into Him again, as bubbles bursting mingle with air-as rivers fall into the ocean. Everything proceeds from and returns to Him, as the web of the spider is emitted from and retracted into itself.

(as I said, I'm through and through atheist, but damn, those Hindus could write!) There are certainly examples of religions that have recognized that other gods exist, but they generally say that the other gods are somehow inferior, and will be defeated by the "True God". If I remember the Old Testament correctly (which it's very possible I might not be, and would be glad to be corrected by someone with more knowledge on the subject), in many of the earlier parts there are implications that other (non-Jewish) deities do exists (like Baal), but that they are nothing compared to the great YHWH, and he and his promised people will drive them away. Another similar (but much more controversial) idea is of course the satanic verses in Islam.

If there is a term for the concept you are referring to, I don't know it. I'd be thrilled to be educated on the subject (as I said, I'm truly fascinated by mythology, in all its forms), and thus leave the subject to my more educated companions :) 195.58.125.53 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

195, you do recall correctly. Psalm 82:1, "God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods." 82:6-7, "I declare: 'Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall.'" Throughout the Hebrew bible there are references to other gods. The idea in general is that different nations have their own gods, but the God of Israel is above them all. Monotheism as we understand it -- the notion of a single god and the nonexistence of other deities -- gained widespread acceptance quite recently in human history. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you very much! Now I can make the point, with some factual backing :) 195.58.125.53 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's simply henotheism, already linked above. - Nunh-huh 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short Story where people have a limited number of words per day[edit]

I have searched for this on the Internet and on several other "book identification" websites with no luck. I am looking for a short story I read in middle school or maybe elementary school. The writing style, as I remember it, was something like Ray Bradbury or Kurt Vonnegut but I have looked through lists of their stories and if it was by one of them it wasn't immediately obvious to me. The story was about a (futuristic?) society wherein people had only a limited number of words per day that they can say. A man was trying to save up enough words to tell a woman he loves her, but then uses them up or something so when she calls him he can't say anything. That's all I can remember. If someone at the desk doesn't know it, I may try to get it published and wait to get sued because I want to know SO BAD what this story was; I really liked it. 69.244.5.221 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Sariasister69.244.5.221 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the poem "The Quiet World" by Jeffrey McDaniel:

In an effort to get people to look

into each other's eyes more,

and also to appease the mutes,

the government has decided

to allot each person exactly one hundred

and sixty-seven words, per day.

When the phone rings, I put it in to my ear

Without saying hello. In the restaurant

I point at chicken noodle soup.

I am adjusting well to the new way.

Late at night, I call my long distance lover,

proudly say I only used fifty-nine today.

I saved the rest for you.

When she doesn't respond,

I know she's used up all her words,

so I slowly whisper I love you

thirty-two and a third times.

After that, we just sit on the line

and listen to each other breathe.

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh I think that's it! I guess I had a few of the details wrong, but I'm so glad I finally found it!69.244.5.221 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Sariasister[reply]

artist of this work?[edit]

Who is the artist for the image shown in Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? I do not doubt its PD status, given its outdated use of the word "Francois," but I need it for an image bibliography lol. 199.111.202.129 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From here (http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/art/102120/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_Citizen_1789) it just seems to put the artist as 'French School' not sure if that's enough 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTSE 100 opening and closing figures[edit]

The BBC business page is currently showing the FTSE 100 as having increased by 3.81%

However, the Yahoo! finance page shows only a 1.46% increase.

I see that Yahoo! are basing the percentage increase on last Friday's close, whereas the BBC are basing it on this morning's opening figure. To me the Yahoo! representation is the more logical, but I'm utterly puzzled as to how a morning's opening figure could differ from the previous trading day's closing figure.

Can anyone enlighten me?--85.158.139.99 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article on it... http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2008-02-20-stocks-open-lower_N.htm . 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That USA Today article indicates why a given stock/share can trade at a quite different price when the market opens compared with the previous close, but it doesn't tell me why the index itself would have a different value at opening than it had at the previous close.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Company X is trading at 100 (people are willing to buy and sell at that amount) when the market closes it's closing price will be 100. If something happens to the company (like price of the raw goods it purchases increase) while the market is closed it may seem less profitable to investors, so when the markets re-open sellers will have put a lower price to entice people to buy. So it may open at, say 60. The FTSE 100 is just the combination of a hundred such companies, whose fortunes may have changed overnight while the stock market was closed. - Phydaux (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The index is the price of all the individual companies stock-prices within that index combined. So the FTSE 100 is the combined share-prices of all the top 100 companies. It's not a piece of stock itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry should add you might want to have a look at stock index 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, though I have to confess I'm still puzzled. Although I was aware that share indices like the FTSE 100 are simply some sort of average of all its constituents, what puzzles me is the calculation. I see from the Stock market index article that generally constituents are weighted according to their capitalisation (which seems rational enough to me).

What I don't see is how an opening index can have a value different from its previous closing value. If the opening value is calculated from the first few trades, how on earth do they do it? Do they look at the first share traded, compare the share's percentage change from its previously traded value, and apply that to the whole index? It can't be that, as it would clearly lead to large biases. Or do they wait for a few minutes to get a more representative set of transactions? Well, possibly that's it.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All FTSE 100 shares are very heavily traded, it won't take long for them all to have had at least one trade, as far as I know the opening index waits until they have, which is likely just a few seconds to a minute. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, thanks for the sensible answer which shows that somebody here understands my question.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the understanding that the 'open price' is the price of the first trade of a stock at the start of the day (and the close price is the price as at 4.35pm for the FTSE 100), then all it takes is a number of stocks to have a different 'open' price to the 'close' price for their to be discrepency between the examples you chose. As the article suggests - if a stock closes at £1.00 a share and it transpires during the markets close that the company has dropped profits by 50% then anybody purchasing the stock the next day could expect to do so at a reduced price. Given that knowledge the first trade may occur at say 90p (10% down). If 10 stocks each open at a different price (up or down) then that will have some effect on the 'open' value of the FTSE 100 index. The index's value changes with the stock and its 'open' value will presumably be based on the open-price of the first trade of each of the FTSE 100 constituents, whilst its close price will be similarly based on the closing-price of each of the FTSE 100 firms. The difference will arise because new information/knowledge becomes available even while the market is closed - therefore the first trade of a day for some stocks will be different to the close-price. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that the FTSE-100 index is calculated from quoted prices of its constituent stocks (i.e. average of closest bid and offer quotes from different sources) rather than on traded prices. Yesterday afternoon I liked your car and offered you $1000 for it. This morning I like it a bit less and offer you only $900. It's that simple. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quoted price is usually the price the stock last traded at, which will generally be someone at or between and bid and ask prices. On stocks as heavily traded as a FTSE 100 stock, the bid-ask spread is likely to be very small, so whatever way you measure it the difference will be a fraction of a penny. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the stock price is not what traders have to buy and sell at, but rather a reflection of what traders have been buying and selling them for. That is why the last sale (close) could be high, and the next day the first sale could be low. The sale isn't affected by any previous price, or the price you see on the BBC ticker. - Phydaux (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The London Stock Exchange main market is a quote-driven market, not an order-driven market. This means that market makers make two-way (bid and offer) quotes on a range of stocks on their books, up to a given size of trade. So, yes there is a clear difference between quoted prices and traded prices. Investors are usually more interested in the quoted price of a stock because that is the price available in the market now, as opposed to the price at which someone last traded. It is entirely possible for an illiquid stock to have a published quoted price even if it has not been traded today (although, as has been said, this wouldn't happen in practice for a FTSE-100 stock). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see the confusion, the word "quote" has two meanings in this contest. You're talking about the prices quoted by money-makers, I'm talking about the prices quoted by Yahoo! Finance, and the like. I think we're both right! --Tango (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question. Let's see we have an equally-weighted index of two stocks (Hmm, X and Y) and X closes at $2 while y closes at $1 with the index at 1.5 at the close. The next morning, before the market opens, company X announces that they've been misstating their earnings for ten years so that the CEO can get big bonuses (this is a real life example!). Nothing new happens for Y which is in an unrelated industry. Y opens at 9:30 with a price of $1 and the price does not change till 10:01 (but the stock trades). Trading in X is delayed and does not start till 10am when it opens at $0.50. So, at 10am, the value of the index is 0.75. Q: What is the value of the index between 9:30 and 10? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing value of the day before. - Phydaux (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To expand on my comment) The index is just a reflection of the trades that have taken place, as no trades can take place while the stock market is closed the value doesn't change. But I would imagine many speculators, investors and brokers would assume a fall in the value of the company, and the index, and trading would open lower than it closed the day before. - Phydaux (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)e[reply]

That's not strictly correct. The calculated and reported open price will be 0.75 since that is the average of the two open prices. However, this is what will be reported after the fact when the exchange reports (Open, High, Low, Close) for the day. I'm curious about how the index will be computed between 9:30 (when Y and the market open) and 10 (when X opens). My guess is that the close of X will be used and the index will show a drop at 10. (Index futures will, of course, reflect the true price of X.)

Masochistic behavior...What is this?[edit]

I have all the info. about sadistic behavior but what about masochistic? Not all masochists enjoy humiliation. I enjoy doing all for my spouse who has DSM. but i hate it when he calls me names or humiliates me. Its not just masochism. Its like I want to be his slave.I enjoy cooking, cleaning, anything he wants from me I do it because i love it. I like getting into physical fights with him. The pain hurts but its not mistaken for pleasure. It DOES hurt. I can inflict pain on myself but i cant draw blood because im afraid it will hurt. When im away from my spouse I feel that I should stop all action because Hes not with me and it doesnt feel right.when i cook for others or clean for others i feel out of place. with all of this information, What is this disease? I mean it has to be a disease if DSM could be counted as one. --Chaela <3 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the Reference Desk cannot diagnose psychiatric or other medical problems. I strongly recommend that you consult with a mental health professional or perhaps a social worker. Marco polo (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was just your fiance? — Lomn 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea[edit]

Today, it's easy to observe that South Korea and it's capitalistic/democratic system is economically superior to North Korea's communist system. With this in mind, why doesn't North Korea change to a governing system more similar to South Korea's? ScienceApe (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I highly doubt this guy would agree to it! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I agree. But does he have so much power that no one in Korea can oppose him? ScienceApe (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone there with power has their power because he lets them have it. No one (or very few) who have power want to risk losing that power. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kim Jong the only thing that is preventing change? ScienceApe (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the people there pretty much consider him a deity. It's not because they're stupid or anything, but they've been brainwashed into thinking that since they were babies. So the attitude of the people would also hamper change. If an assassin were to take out Kim Jong-il, I doubt North Korea would immediately change over to a democratic government. If South Korea was to invade North Korea and forcibly install a democratic government, that might work. I'm certainly not advocating either point of view, though!

Also, Kim Jong-il very likely has his successors all planned out who will continue the "Communist" government (it's not really communist, more fascist), so his death would likely not change much. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, we might soon get to see if you're correct. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think many or most Korea experts and Koreans believe that the two states would have been unified and neutralized years ago if not for American opposition.John Z (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would have. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that systems like this rarely justify themselves on being truly economically superior, or at least never acknowledge that it has been a "fair fight" (and often it hasn't been—if you tried to run a capitalistic system with the sorts of sanctions that are put against North Korea, you'd have trouble too). Another way to think of this is: the economies of autocratic states are often much better than those of democracies (for various reasons, often relating to large reserves of natural resources in said autocratic states). Would that fact at any point in time convince those in said democracies that they should convert to the autocratic system? Or would they say, "oh, that's just fluctuations of the market" or "oh, that's because they're setting unfair oil prices" or "oh, that's because of X and Y and Z"? I doubt it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) certainly seems to rebut your assertion that "economies of autocratic states are often much better than those of democracies." Unless, of course, your conception of "good" or "bad" economies is based on something other than economic growth. GreatManTheory (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of North and South Korea, imagine the question is the Mafia and Disney. Why won't the Mafia simply take the honest road? Well, maybe they don't know how; they don't want to risk losing what they have; they don't want to get arrested for what they did in the past; or they really believe in what they do. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's right to say that North Korea's system persists only or even mainly because everyone with any privilege owes their position to Kim Jong-il. I'm not sure how true that is in practice. I think that the (very powerful and privileged) military may have its own system for promotions in which Kim is not involved. I think that the system survives because it gives tremendous power and privilege within North Korea to that country's military, and especially the military elites and security services, who very effectively suppress any hint of dissent and who could easily crush any nascent opposition force. Marco polo (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the average North Korean is far worse off than the average South Korean, the North Korean elite lives a pampered life. The Dear Leader is said to drink expensive cognac from fine crystal and eat pricey caviar. So for the people who make the decisions, the North Korean system is just fine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly a guess, but it seems to me that one of the possible contributing factors to why the citizenry of North Korea have not rebelled and thrown out Kim Jong-Il and his government has to do with the history of the country. Historically, Korea has been invaded numerous times by outsiders, and over the years this probably (I'm conjecturing) resulted in a very insular reaction to perceived outside aggression with the Korean people. It would, therefore, be a fairly simple thing for an inscrupulous dictator such as Kim to take advantage of this inborn distrust of anything not Korean. By playing on the fears of the people, he is able to maintain his control over them. Again, just theorizing, which I know we're not supposed to do here in the Reference Desk, but it may help lead you on to exploring other alternate possible answers for your question. Saukkomies 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Humanism -Dead or Alive? (Insert spinning joke here)...[edit]

Hello Wikipedia,

As an non-american, this election is really gripping. Obviously its easy to despair at points like these (when you're about to elect a few more far-right loons for office) but i'm trying to stay positive. Michael Moore tells me that the majority of americans hold liberal views points (on things like abortion, gays, healthcare etc..) whereas that guy who used to head up 'Focus on the Family' (<blp violation removed>?) tells us that 'Secular Humanism is dead' at that when the religious right vote, they decide the election. So which is it? Are there some surveys or something anyone can direct me to or something with a little more NPOV? Thanks 82.22.4.63 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a BLP violation in the above comments. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, does recommend that fathers take showers with their sons to make sure that they don't become gay. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Corvus. You removed a 'BLP violation' and then you wrote that about James Dobson without a reference? maybe you should rethink. Do you have a reference for that remark? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Stop. Rewind. Fathers taking showers with their sons keeps the sons from becoming gay? Exactly how is that supposed to work? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be more worried about the fathers who wanted to do that, than about the sons. Well, I personally wouldn't be worried about the sons at all - that is, until the father climbed into the shower with them. Hoo boy. We've got a way to go yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Corvus hasn't supported his allegation with anything yet. We only have his word for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with fathers taking showers with their sons (frankly, I think it's pretty much a non-issue); I'd just like to hear the "logic" behind that procedure preventing homosexuality. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of, and it's extremely tenuous, is that having your Dad next to you in the shower would certainly dampen your desire to have a wank. The tenuous link I refer to is that some people associate masturbation with homosexuality. I don't know why they do, but they do. But that of course leaves the other 99.5% of the day when the father's not around, in which the son can find a nice private place and go for his life. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory expounded in the reference, if you read it (and it's not Dobson's theory, though he does seem to support it) is that a contributary factor to a homosexual orientation is a failure of a young boy to identify with their own gender. In short they start to perceive themselves as 'different' from other boys at a young age, even before sex is an issue. The proponent then goes on to say that a father can strengthen the identification in many ways, but including showing the boy that his genitalia is built like his father and not his mother. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two are not mutually exclusive. The majority of Americans can be generally liberal, and the religious right can decide the vote. This just suggests that the majority of Americans are also apathetic toward politics. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two key issues: which side motivates their supporters to get out and vote; and how honest the vote count is. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of reports recently, including pieces by NPR and the BBC, that propose that evangelicalism is a fading force in 2008 America. I’ll try to those news stories for you, but it was a while ago so I’m not sure that I’ll secede. Here’s and interesting book on the mater however. These last years have suitably been a terrifying ride, but the feeling today is that The Dark Side is, if not beaten, in retreat. In a few decades this time may be looked at in a similar way to how we view the Civil Rights Era, a horrible part of our past that is remembered and commemorated as an example of how the American people can overcome evil. There are strong paroles (the current open acceptance of homophobia in the media for instance). --S.dedalus (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and secular humanism is defiantly not dead. An Imagine No Religion billboard just went up in downtown Seattle and there are dozens more around the country. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those reponses guys -its quite a relief -although i'd be interested in what the response would be over on good ol' Conservapedia. (P.s. SDedalus - i love the 'straight not narrow' thing on your page -genius!) anyway, two questions, 1) What does BLP stand for and 2) it was actually a serious question -can't you just say something like 'that has yet to be proven' rather than delete it from record?82.22.4.63 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP" is Wikipedia-talk for a violation of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding liberal viewpoints doesn't imply being a secular humanist. I know many very liberal Christians (and some fairly non-religious conservatives, too). 128.194.34.211 (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and the term "we"[edit]

I was recently watching a TV show about how the Qur'an "predicted" current scientific facts 1400 years ago. In this program, there were quotes of the Qur'an to suppoot the thesis that the Qur'an made such predictions (and that this is "proof" in the existance of God. In many of the verses used, there was reference to "we." My understand that Islam is monothestic but "we" is plural. Since Islam does not promote a triune godhead (as does Christianity), who is the "we" that is being referred to? What is the context of this plural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the royal we. Remember, you were hearing translations from the Arabic, there is often a fair amount of choice in how you translate things, the translator may have decided that "we" more accurately conveys the feel of the verse even if a literal translation would have had "I". --Tango (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Genesis, the Hebrew god is sometimes referred to as Elohim, which is plural in form, but considered singular in meaning. At at least one point, the deity says "Let us... " which is interpreted in many ways, as the royal we, as a god in a polytheistic system, or as reference to the Elohim title, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just glanced through a few sections of my Qur'an and skimmed to where I found a few instances of this 'We'. A couple times they were Muhammad speaking and a couple times they were quotations of Moses. In either case it was there in the Arabic as well. Muslims have a clear distinction between the Prophets and God. They would never say a Prophet is God or is on the same level, but nevertheless this type of speech is there. It's maybe taken as sort of a 'royal we', but maybe taken as sort of a 'myself and God' sort of a thing, because even though they're taken as being different and unequal, they are taken as being in concord. If the Prophet is God's vessel and God is speaking through Him then such a conjugation is not illogical. - Lamba jan 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]