Entertainment desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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.

June 29

Song about man who spends too much time with his girlfriend and loses all his friends

As in the title, I'm looking for a song about a man who spends too much time with his girlfriend, and in doing so alienates all his friends. When his relationship breaks down, he finds his friends aren't there for him. I heard it on the radio a while ago - sounded like it could have been by bowie, rod stewart or someone like that. Can't remember too many more details I'm afraid. Any suggestions of what it could have been, or even songs with a similar theme? Cheers, 79.72.166.102 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band Big City Rock has a song called "Sink" that is similar, but I do not think I have ever heard it on the radio. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARUN S BAGH QUES. ABOUT GAME ACCESSORY

PLEASE TELL ME THE TERM USE IN GAMES FOR THE THREE WOODEN BLOCKS ON WHICH 1 2 AN 3 IS WRITTEN . ON WHICH WINNERS STAND WHEN THEY STOOD FIRST SECOND OR THIRD . IT LOOKS LIKE A STAIRCASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.172.36 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's is a podium, and there is no need to SHOUT.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it illegal to fight to the death?

Why isn't there gladiator type fights anymore? I realize there are so called moral and ethical reasons why. But when you think about it,- if you are a consenting adult, and sign a waiver (with filmed witnesses), there is no real reason why we can't bring something like this back every once in a while. I'm talking about running downhill towards each other with swords, guns, and flamethrowers! I remember all the hoopla over extreme fighting a few years back (still legal, somehow), and they're doing just fine.--Baseball and and and Popcorn Fanatic (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because murder is illegal worldwide and euthanasia, even when it's consensual and painless by definition, is very controversial and illegal in many places. Kreachure (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in terms of this as a spectator sport, not just people killing people anywhere willy-nilly. The first guy to create, promote, and clear the legal hurdles will be a galzillionaire!--Baseball and and and Popcorn Fanatic (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the legal and moral issues, it would be hard to build fan interest when your favorite player is liable to be pushing up daisies at any time. Remember, the Romans didn't have as many entertainment choices. However, if you can come up with a lethal version of baseball, I'd pay to see Barry Bonds play. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most jurisdictions, even if the victim was willing and had signed a waiver it would still be considered murder, and most likely the waver would be ignored as they would presume the person wasn't of a sound state of mind when they made it. I remember the story of the guy who agreed to be eaten, and he got 8 years for it. [1] At the very least it would probably be considered manslaughter or assisted suicide JessicaN10248 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you're really asking here is why people aren't allowed to give another person their permission to be killed by them. There are lots of reasons for this, and in some circumstances it is allowed -- in countries where euthanasia is legal, for example. Generally speaking, most societies consider killing people to be contrary to the overall well-being of societies, which is why murder tends to be frowned upon -- but, of course, the situation is morally different from murder if someone is asking or giving permission to be killed. In addition to death being something of a taboo, there are a number of other problems with the concept of someone signing a waiver and consenting to fight to death or grievous injury. Would such a system exploit the poor, stupid or desperate for the pleasure of the rich, for example? Would it create a culture where human life is given an explicit monetary value? How do we know that people are really giving their informed consent, or that they aren't being pressured into doing so? Questions like this have already been raised in connection with various other human endeavors. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as Captain Disdain said above, what system would be put in place to ensure those "willing" to die were not being pressured or forced into it? If I remember correctly, most Roman gladiators were slaves who were forced for fight to win their freedom or simply to say alive. JessicaN10248 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one more time. "Fighting to the death" is illegal because by definition it's attempted murder, which is a crime anywhere in the world. The use of any type of weapon with the intent to kill is again considered attempted murder, which is considered a crime regardless of the consent of the person trying to be killed. Hell, assault and battery are really serious crimes to begin with! Even if it were considered justifiable homicide by claiming self-defense, either one of the combatants would automatically be charged with attempted murder. And I mentioned euthanasia because it's supposed to be painless and consensual, but nevertheless it's illegal in many places. Do you think that very painful killing would be allowed the way euthanasia is? I won't even mention the several pages of human rights treaties and laws that would make it impossible. Consequent moral issues like exploitation would certainly be the last of many nails in the coffin of an endeavor like this one. Kreachure (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial by combat used to be an acceptable and perfectly legal way to detemine guilt and innocence. It was technically outlawed in the 13th century but there were duels up until at least the 19th. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on gladiators is desperately in need of citations, but it claims that only about 10% of fighters actually died from combat and that jibes with what I recall from my Classics classes. I'm not sure that having even less regard for human life than the Romans is something to aspire to, but I'm sure Fox will be right there to broadcast it should you get things off the ground. Matt Deres (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be remembered that soldiers in combat do fight to the death in many places. It is legal but not necessarily heroic. As to your "so called" moral and ethical reasons, you should simply ask their family.

I must admit that a querent seriously suggesting that organised killing should be a "spectator sport", followed by millions of betting viewers munching popcorn in their suburban homes, seems a frightening nightmare penned by an autistic human being who may need psychiatric help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absurd suggestion and completely uncalled-for. There are a great many people in favour of televised executions, for example, and video clips of car crashes and hostage executions are popular topics on YouTube and the eleven o'clock news. Witnessing the death of a person is an extremely visceral experience and one that many people find fascinating, your holier-than-thou attitude notwithstanding. I also found your choice of "autistic" to be completely ridiculous (perhaps you meant psychotic?) and insulting. Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather significant difference between morbid curiosity in a death that is known to have already occurred and actively killing someone for entertainment purposes. APL (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (without agreeing that the wording of the aforementioned statement was appropriate) that the use of the word "autistic" was meant to imply that anyone who would advocate deliberately sending a human being to his death for the entertainment of spectators is lacking in some vital emotional bonding factor that most of us possess. I'm as intrigued as anyone by derring-do, death-defying stunts performed by skillful experts, a good death scene in a movie, even the sometimes macabre spectacle of accidental death. But the idea of sending another living being to his or her death, leaving those who cared about him or her grieving and bewildered, simply so I can indulge my morbid fascination, sickens me - and outside of those places in the world where life is still sadly cheap (and certain very dark subcultures elsewhere), most folks nowadays would agree. Human beings in many places are not allowed to consent to their own deaths, certainly not by violence. Besides, most likely the only people who would sign up to participate in such entertainments would be blood-lusting psychopaths (who may be physiologically incapable of fear) and those who have a death wish anyway - neither of whom should we ought to be indulging in that manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not being in favour of this, I would note that when The Truman Show came out the idea of a TV program like Big Brother seemed sickening and ridiculous. When the first UK series of Big Brother was broadcast the papers were full of articles discussing whether it was moral. That first series was careful, employing psychologists to make comments so that the program could pretend to be 'scientific', an 'experiment', 'educational'. As time passed, the conditions and manipulation in the program have become ridiculous, but nobody cares any more. It's become accepted. It would not be inconceivable for a fight-to-the-death program to emerge, although it would take time for morals to shift for it to be accepted. Preventing such a thing may be considered a reason to preëmptively get yourself a position of power. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]