Humanities desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

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.

November 17

Polygyny in the Bible

Where does it say in the bible that ONE MAN must have ONE WIFE? And where it say in the bible that the polygyny is a sin? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really doesn't say that in so many words. 1 Timothy 3 does require that bishops and deacons be the husband of one wife, though. [1] Wrad (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's implied that monogamy is what God originally intended when he first set it up that way with Adam and Eve. I don't know why he decided not to enforce it in the old testament when polygyny was so prevalent, but it is later clarified that marriage is meant as a type for the relationship between Christ (the groom) and the church (as the bride), with the end of Revelation being the "marriage supper". —Akrabbim^talk 04:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God didn't just "decide not to enforce it" in the Old Testament. It wasn't a rule. Jacob wouldn't have had his twelve sons without his wives and concubines. He would not have fulfilled God's promise to his grandfather Abraham. God blessed Jacob despite (or because of? or through?) his multiple wives and concubines. Wrad (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys, aren't there verses in the New Testament which says a man must have one wife? C'mon. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There are no verses that say that. Not unless you want to make something up out of nothing. Wrad (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Titus 1:6-7, Paul says that Titus should look for Bishops among Elders who have only one wife. Again, it doesn't really say it right out. Wrad (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural wives along with concubines and love slaves were common among the people of the Book in the Old Testament. See the account of the conquest of Canaan, and rules for how the young virgin girls in the captured towns were to be divided up after noncombatant adults, non-virgin girls and boys were murdered. See Numbers 31: "15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." per [2]. Perhaps the soldiers courted and wed the virgin girls. Perhaps not. Some sources say that monogamy was an ideal and that bigamy or concubinage was a regrettable lapse. Edison (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Just because it happens in the bible does not mean that it is allowable. Much of what happens in the bible is obviously intended as a negative lesson; and even the stuff that isn't is designed to be there for historical context, not necessarily as "this is how one should do it" but "this is the way it was". However, in situatiosn where the Bible gives commandments/suggestions/"hey this is what you should do" direct statements on the matter, it clearly indicates a preference for monogamous marriage. This is distinct from descriptions of polygynous marriage, which it doesn't really say is "OK" anywhere, but merely describes as existing as being an historical fact, without commentary on its rightness. 2) As far as actual passages, are you guys even trying? see: Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." wife, singular. 1 Corinthians 7:24 "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband" Clearly a one man-one woman marriage situation. Matthew 19:9, also Mark 10:11. also Luke 16:18 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery" i.e. a man should not marry another woman except his first wife. 1 Timothy 3 talks about elders and deacons must have one wife; it recognized the existance of polygynous marriage, but also recognized that monogamy was the preferred state for anyone who would hold a position of respect in the church. Titus 1 also talks about the same thing. --Jayron32 06:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but I don't see how you could argue that Abraham and Jacob's multiple wives are intended as a negative example. I don't think it's quite as simple as you're saying. Wrad (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of Abraham's and Jacob's experiences with polygyny are nothing but negative. Abraham took Hagar as a concubine in what could be argued as a lapse in faith, since he wasn't having children with Sarah. he ended up having to send her away when Ishmael, who was born to her, later resented Isaac for being chosen as the heir.

Jacob was deceived into having two wives - he loved Rachel, but her father tricked him into marrying her older sister ~~Leia~~ Leah first. In their competition for his love, they convinced him to take concubines, and they were openly hostile to each other. That hostility continued with their children, with many of the sons resenting Joseph and Benjamin for being Rachel's. —Akrabbim^talk 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly subjective reading with which I strongly disagree. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it's said that man and women was created one flash, but there is no specific refernce for that one man is allowed one women. It was said that one of the mistakes of king Solomon was that he had many women. Polygyny appear in the Bible relatively lately, I'm sure that there were many references to that by religious scholars. However, Judaism strictly adopted the idea of monogamy about 1000 years ago (see Gershom ben Judah) even if in practice monogamy was the by far most common marriage fashion among Jewish people for at the least 2000-2200 years. In comment to Edison-this citation you gave: " but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" sounds to me highly incorrect or out of the Hebrew context -refering to the the beautiful captive the Bible specifically harden on Israelites to take enemies women as loot. What more that the enemy you mention is the Seven nations of Canaan -the most bitter enemies of the Israelites, along with Amalek and though we know that many Canaanites joined to the people of Israel, and that (as all other nations then) Israelites had slaves, mainly Canaanites (to whom they were obligated to give fair treatment) I get it hard to believe that the Bible commanded Israelites to take virgin Canaanite women as plunder.--Gilisa (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its not the Bible who makes this fine distinction - it's Moses, apparently following god's explicit command (Numbers 31:1-2, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites", after which (31:7)... "they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males", but apparently kept too many women and children alive, so Moses issues the now (in)famous orders (31:17-18): "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Dawkins does have a point about the "most unpleasant character"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One paradox that Dawkins made in this statement is that if God doesn't exist then it never gave this order and if it then it never wrong. Anyhow, history gave us endless examples where people didn't need any orders from any divine source to slaughter their enemies and others.--217.132.90.111 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dawkins' statement continues. In a more complete form, it reads "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: [long list of generally undesirable character traits]". He is highly consistent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, my sign --Gilisa (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC), just forgot to add it before ;).[reply]

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." —Akrabbim^talk 13:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In context, that doesn't quite meet the original question: Where in the Bible does it say "ONE MAN must have ONE WIFE", as the passage in question says marriage is less desirable than being single. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," though "if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn". All predicated upon Paul's expectation of the imminent end of the world, which wound up not happening. - Nunh-huh 13:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthians were written AC, when monogamy was probably the norm.--217.132.90.111 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once you define the exact text you are looking for in a specific way, it's pretty easy to make the claim that the bible is silent on an issue that it clearly isn't. You seem to have already decided that the bible has no text which defines monogamous marriage or forbids polygynous marriage, and when faced with text that disagrees with your preconceived conclusion, you simply define the text you demand to see. It isn't that simple. The bible is not just a list of laws and proscriptions... --Jayron32 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it doesn't say it explicitly, but it doesn't hard to find in the bible people who had one women only and if I'm not mistaken there are also orders in the bible regarding to the financial obligation of a man to his women. Probably those who were well based had several (see that for an instance).--Gilisa (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update on benefit concert series

The necessary information collected has been emailed in. The information I'm referring to is about the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series in New Zealand. I hope everything is all that is needed.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the ball and chain

The Ball and chain page reads:

"A ball and chain is a physical restraint device historically used on prisoners."

I'd like to know more information about the history of this method of restraint, especially why and when it fell out of use. Is there mention of this somewhere in Wikipedia? I couldn't find anything. Also could be an idea for a new article if someone wants to write something up... perhaps Prison history or History of prison? -- œ ^™ 06:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try a Google Book search for historical use? It is easy to find historic examples of its use, but harder to find a statement of when and where it was invented. It obviously dates to after the time a blacksmith could lock or rivet a shackel around a leg that a prisoner could not undo, but metal weights, chains, and the means of attaching the same surely date far back in history. It kept a prisoner from running away swiftly or far, but at the same time it precluded work requiring mobility, such as plowing. See page 481, [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] for some historic mentions. Strangely, most relate to its use in the U.S. Here is one account of "ironing" by ball and chain in Lancashire, which says "felons were usually placed in irons." Here is another discussion of ball and chain in England: [8]. Here is an account of the need in England to keep prisoners in irons in the 1200's so they could not escape by breaking through the walls:[9]. [[10],[11], [12] or for slaves who would not submit to the orders of the overseer pp78-80. Edison (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade

I recall having read somewhere that some people never refer to jade as a single entity, such as 'I mined a jade', but rather always treat it as part of a larger whole, such as 'I mined a piece of jade'. They do so because they consider all pieces of jade to derive from a single universal jade stone. I can find no reference to such a notion in Jade (though I have been known to miss startlingly obvious things). Is this something I am completely making up, or is this something that is done? ÷seresin 08:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the "single universal jade stone" thing. More likely it is simply a mass noun like many types of stone (you don't have "a quartz", "a granite", etc either). FiggyBee (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard '... a jade'. I've only ever heard it referred to as 'a piece of', 'some', 'a chunk of', etc. In case it matters, I'm a native American. Dismas|^(talk) 11:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A piece of granite", "a piece of sandstone", "a piece of jasper". Precious stones like emeralds and diamonds, by way of contrast, are inclusions in a stone matrix.--Wetman (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Oops: the inclusions are within the diamonds: the diamonds themselves are xenoliths included in kimberlite. You may see garnets embedded in other rocks (even in Central Park!).--Wetman (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see our article on mass nouns. Jade is a mass noun (like granite, or milk, or air) in English, meaning that it cannot be directly modified by a numeral or indefinite article without specifying a unit of measurement. --M @r ē ino 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you run across a reference in Shakespeare to "a jade", it is not to a precious mineral, but to a horse—I think to a tired workhorse—or (by analogy) to a woman of easy virtue. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art style in poster

For the poster to the right, what would be the best description of the artistic style used? I'm trying to add alt text, but art isn't one of my strong points, and I don't think "Depiction of a goalkeeper making a save, drawn in a style that is sort of abstract but not really" would cut the mustard ;) Oldelpaso (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco.--Wetman (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sports poster, simplified figurative representation, stylized font, Art Deco, hard edge Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tutsis and Hutu

in my sociology book, it says that Hutus are dark-skinned and Tutsis are light-skinned. Does this mean that Tutsis are the only African group that are light-skinned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.179 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sociology book seems to be a bad book. According to our article on Hutu, "The division between the Hutu and the Tutsi [...] is based more upon social class than ethnicity, as there are no significant lingual, physical, or cultural differences between them." Also, there are many African groups that are relatively light-skinned, e.g. the Berber people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not realy African if you refer to the image most people have in mind about "African". They are also far relatives of the Sami people, whose origins are also from the North African Berberic tribes.--Gilisa (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should 'African' mean 'the image most people have in mind about "African"'? If the image most people have in mind is inaccurate, and the question is about actual Africans, why limit yourself to examples that confirm a stereotype? And, since English is not your first language, you might find it helpful to know that the words "negro" and "negroid" are generally considered racist terms in English. In fact, the whole idea of Negroids and Europids is generally considered racist. This is the sort of thing that can trip a learner up, and if you use them in the real world people might not be very understanding. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I notice we have a handy article at Negroid which comes complete with a "criticism" section explaining why scientists don't generally use this outdated method of classifying people. And the article at Negro does contain a little note about the term not being generally used in English any more, although I don't think it carries quite enough warning for the non-native speaker. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realy didn't know this so I real don't feel like I should apologize. In fact, the first time I faced the term Europead was when I used professional atlas which was printed about ten years ago (there it made the racial demographic distribution in different places in the word). As for the "Negro"-I was looking for an article on black African people and that's what come first. I should have used the term Caucasian for berbers and "Black Africans" for black Africans or at the least sub-Saharan Africas-which is the term used in research papers. --Gilisa (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be defensive: if you read my comment, I expected you to be ignorant of this and did not ask for an apology. I merely pointed it out, as without knowing it you would come across as racist. It is exactly the sort of term that trips a learner up, because the cognates in other languages carry different connotations. Now you know. This was the goal of the comment.

If you want to continue holding an odd race-based view of human genetics, whatever you choose to call them, that's fine for you. But please avoid 'correcting' people who are discussing more subtle realities. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86, I will not use this terms any longer. I know that this term may sound racist in other languages but I didn't know that in English as well. and as I told, a search on wikipedia lead me to the wrong conclusion thast this is the anthropological term in English. Infact, the N word I know in English is different. As for "correcting" other people, you are right that it was pointless to refer to the image most people have, or not have, in mind. My original meaning was to direct the answer to the OP original question (and there is racism in Africa among people of the same color but also of different hue), so I do feel a bit defensive here as my word choosing went wrong.--Gilisa (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mm I think a significant link between the Sami and the Hutus is tenuous at best... But regardless, the Tutsis are clearly not the only light skinned Africans, the Berbers, Afro-Arabs, White Africans and so on all have people that are "lighter". That and, as Stephan says, from what it says in "Shake Hands with the Devil", the supposed differences were a product of Belgian policies of favouring one part of the population over the other, based on real or imagined physical differences. People in the same families may have been divided into the two categories at one point, based on one being taller and lighter and the other shorter and darker. It is a constructed (or perhaps reconstructed) line almost arbitrarily drawn by an outside group (the Belgians). TastyCakes (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the Berbers which Stephan gave as an example to light skinned Africans. But they are non European Europids while both Hutus and Tutsi are Negroids.--Gilisa (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you pre-define "African" to mean "black negro", then the original question becomes pointless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely correct. Even among black Africans there is at least some prejudice about skinn color, or more precisely about its tint. For example, Ethiopians have special words in their language for different skin hues (from light brown to pitch black). For instance the Amharic word "barya" refer to one with very dark skin - usually, in Ethiopian society, these people suffers from low status among Ethiopians, many times treated like slaves. --Gilisa (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even among sub-Saharan African peoples, (what most would consider "Black Africa" to distinguish from the Berber and Arabic peoples of North Africa), there is a wide variance in skin color between ethnic groups and within a single ethnic group. --Jayron32 23:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that last comment, there is the Von Luschan's chromatic scale which shows the variety of skin colours. As you can see on the map, Sub-Saharan Africa varies from 21-36. Munci (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Tutsis have liked to think of themselves as descendants of animal-herders who came into the Burundi-Rwanda area from the north several centuries ago and conquered the Hutu agriculturalists there, so that originally the Tutsi would have had a tendency to be taller, etc. However, it's extremely doubtful whether there's any reliable difference in appearance between typical Tutsis and typical Hutus today.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Mike Nifong now, late 2009?

Mike Nifong is the disgraced Durham County, NC, d.a. who so mishandled the Duke lacrosse case. Last news I can find of him is that he filed for bankruptcy in January 2008. There is little-to-nothing about him on the internet since then.Where did he go?

here is the Google News search for the last 3 months or so. Apparently he's being sued for wrongful and malicious procescution. You can read these recent articles at your leisure. --Jayron32 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At my leisure, I read these articles, and unfortunately none of them relates where Mike Nifong is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.237.234 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might speculate that he has received enough unsolicited correspondence on his actions that he chooses to keep a lower profile. --Sean 13:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty-subjective or by choice?

I've never really thought about this until now, but I was wondering if there is a such thing that no matter how you look and even if you are/look like a handsome celebrity, (e.g. Brad Pitt,Orlando Bloom, Jude Law, Jamie Dornan another famous model etc.) there will always be someone who looks better than you. Is this true?

And I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but what could that possibly mean? That its different for everyone but you have no control over it? Or you have a choice to see what is beautiful and what isn't?

I used to think that I was the most handsome man in the world but after I heard this from someone else, I'm having different thoughts.

Whats the answers, guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.167.186 (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually being able to tell what is "beautiful" and what is "ugly" have survival value. For instance. tall is beautiful by women in different cultures and it was find that taller mans do enjoy higher rates of fertility. Wide chin in a man can tell that he have higher levels of Testosterone. Red lips in a women may tell that she is fertile and enjoy high levels of Estrogen and so forth, there are endless examples. But, there is also place for cultural effect and for other variables. Studies in psychology have shown that women consider as more beautiful a man who hold a baby in his hands (good daddy), rich man is also perceived as sexier (even it also have clear survival value), assertivity in man may give, communicativity and the ability to look straight in the eyes-are all make one more beautiful in the eyes of many women. Also, women and man would define differently the beauty of the same person. There is still place for personal taste as there are many kinds of beauty-body proportions, distance between the eyes and etc are divided somewhat equally between different races and consist large part of beauty definition. Moreover, the concept of beuty changed in different times and places (e.g., in places and times where famine spread chubby women were considerd beautiful) but it was also found that the basics of beauty are the same all around the globe--Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember where but I remember a term call facial averaging (no wiki on this!? I'm disappointed) Google return this - based on "Average faces are attractive, but not all of them. It is crucial which faces are used to compute an average face. Composites made from unattractive faces remain rather unattractive and average faces from attractive faces remain attractive.", I suppose if you merge all the facial pictures from men you consider handsome a new, more handsome man will emerge.

As for the part about considering yourself as the world most handsome man ... no comment Royor (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Actually, this summary from the same site will answer your question nicely. Royor (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find the article about Nancy Etcoff (for some reason it redirect to Pinker) but she published best-seller titled "Survival of the prettiest" which sum it all up (including face averaging).--Gilisa (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are like certain dishes. Sometimes you feel like one, sometimes you like another. Sometimes you are obsessed with Oreo Blizzards or calamari, sometimes you dream of Brad Pitt or Cate Blanchett every night. It's because there's something about them or in them or woven in their DNA that appeals to your deficits. Vranak (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known actors set the standard for beauty rather than the other way around. For example Leonardo DeCaprio. 78.146.97.208 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen here?

Hypothetical question: Due to the corporation's fault, ACME Airways flight 42 from LA to Tokyo crashes on a deserted island, but there are survivors. However, they are not found. 10 years later, the survivors of the crash are found, and return to the USA. However, in the 10 years that have passed, ACME has gone through Chapter 11, and then was acquired by the larger ULTRA Airlines.

Do the survivors of ACME Airways Flight 42 has anyone to sue?

Doesn't sound like it. An easier case than the desert island are Superfund sites for companies that created hugely polluted areas but have long since gone out of business. In such cases, there is no way to get any restitution (and the public pays for it). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they have someone to sue. There's no prohibition against filing suit against ULTRA or MAGIC or DHARMA or whoever they like. Whether the suit succeeeds (or is even likely to succeed) depends strongly on a several factors that aren't specified. Chapter 11 bankruptcy includes an automatic stay against debtor actions, but it's not clear to me whether that would prevent private suits (it also seems that the stay expires when the company leaves bankruptcy). Legal liability could also be affected by the terms of ULTRA's acquisition of ACME, or by whether the crash victims' families had already pursued a suit, by the terms of ACME's contract of carriage, or by several things I'm sure I haven't thought of. — Lomn 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reckon that any island rich enough to support humans for ten years would probably have people coming by from time to time, for whatever purposes. Research, recreation, somewhere to put your feet down after a lengthy sea journey. Vranak (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unless the plane was thousands of miles off course, it probably would have been at least somewhat searched during the investigation of the missing aircraft. Googlemeister (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. First, why did the plane crash? If it was mechanical fault, the manufacturer/maintenence company might be libel. If it was pilot error, the successor company (if any) might have assumed responsibility. Act of God? Sue the Big Man Himself. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was the point of the question. I like to keep things real though. Can this happen? Would this happen? The first thing that came to mind is that any aircraft crashing into the ocean or an uninhabited island will probably involve very, very few survivors. Vranak (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually another point occured to me. If there was some liability it's possible people would have already been aware of that. (Of course it's also possible the discovery of the survivors lead to either new information or discovery of the wreakage which proved liability.) If that's the case the relatives of the victims would likely already have sued whoever was liable. Would the survivors be entitlted to additional money? Would they have to ask or sue their relatives for whatever payments they received? Etc... Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean liable? Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting such case of the liability (or lack thereof) of successor companies occurs in Dow Chemical's purchase of Union Carbide, famous for the Bhopal Disaster. --Sean 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking references for article improvement

I am looking for assistance in finding references regarding Asian Indian Americans during World War II. In the 1940 US Census "Hindu Americans" were the fourth largest group of Asian Americans after the Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos. So far I have not found significant sources which to create a paragraph for Indian Americans in the article Military History of Asian Americans. If anyone would like to assist, they can place references they find on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What aspects of mainstream Neoclassical economic theory does the Austrian School reject?

What aspects of mainstream Neoclassical economic theory does the Austrian School reject? --Gary123 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This (a) sounds like a homework question and (b) looks like you may not have checked Austrian School... Grutness...wha? 23:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction, a cure that is lasting.

I have, recently, followed the Conversion History of Saint Augustine.

I'v discovered that he, in his confessions, found the key to a lasting cure from addiction and dependancy.

Am I alone in this ? Saint Augustine went from being an addict to some backsliding to complete cure. Working with the Addict I stumbled upon this as did Saint Augustine when he found his cure.

Am I alone ?

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many parallels between the Confessions of St. Augustine and other important religious texts. The story of redemption from a sinful life through acetism and/or the intervention of a higher religious power is a common theme for many people. See Siddhartha Gautama and John Newton and even St. Paul himself. The invoking of a higher power in one's life can be a powerful tool for behavior modification, which is why most Twelve-step program contain some requirement that the adict must do exactly that before their addiction can be controlled. Many many many people have found themselves cured of adictions in this way. That having been said, many many many people have also NOT found themselves cured of addictions. It works, but not in every case. There are many types of adicts, and many reasons to be adicted, and not every method works for all people. So, while St. Augustine's story is a poweful one, and one which can be found throughout history in other former adicts stories, it may not work for everyone automatically. --Jayron32 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine was the last great intellect of the ancienr world. Born a pagan , although his mother was Ste. Monica, he eventually converted to Christianity. Although, in some ways, I am an admirer, it should be pointed out that the OP is seeing things from a very subjective viewpoint.

As a young man, Augustine was somewhat of a bon vivant, but not "addicted" to anything - drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling - that we normally think of when we use the term "addiction." While Augustine was well-educated, MacOfJesus appears to feel that anything other than a religious/ascetic lifestyle is an addiction. I rather see things the other way around.

After his conversion, Augustine went so far as to declare that the most pernicious aspect of his previous life was the accumulation of knowledge, and that if he wanted to know things just for the sake of knowing, then he had rejected God. The Confessions and the City of God were thus the overture announcing the Dark Ages. They were written after he had become an addict .... of religion.

B00P (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my work situation I work with the addict.

I have re-read Saint Augustine's Confessions in the original Latin, and I'v discovered a pattern. Of course every addict is different. The Addiction of Augustine was "the women" and fathering children. His Confessions are key, and his declarations in it do speak of "Formis", "Deformis". His religious fevour was one of the keys/steps to a change of life, a life he wanted but was postponing, putting "on the long finger".

Even Jung said to Father Victor White in his letters to him: "Of all religions, Christanity lends itself to the healing of the human psyche" in his responding in letter-form over Answer to Job, See the notes in the talk page.

I have no axe to grind, I'v just followed a study, and what I say is a reflection of what I'v read and discovered and what I'v discussed with other professors of the discipline.

Anyone see this?

What I'm saying is that he found the key/steps to being free of addiction/dependancy, which can be (with the willingness of the patient) be used as a complete cure. Depending on the addiction it may take longer, but the co-operation and willingness of the patient is paramount here. In fact the way the patient sees themselves and what they want for themselves at that point of time is paramount.

Thanks for responding.

I'v left a similar request at the miscellaneous section as I did'nt know where to put it! There someone asked if I were alone. I don't know! That is one of the reasons for asking.

I think he discovered the necessary steps to a complete cure that would be valid for all. However, many do not want a complete cure but are happy balancing addiction with freedom.

In studying those who received such a cure and comparing the steps of Saint Augustine, I see a co-relation.

Does anyone know the original Confessions with references sufficiently, (in Latin), as they defy adequite translation?

I do have to consider; I am alone! I'll just have to publish my findings!

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase: "the Dark Ages" was I believe a name coined by Hilaire Belloc, a devout Christian and Catholic to refer to a period known as the Middle Ages. At least 500-600 years later than Saint Augustine, to refer to a period of decay in Europe caused by the decline of the feudal system.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know about Belloc but usually "dark ages" means the entire Middle Ages, at least in the popular imagination of dung-eating peasants; in a more academic sense it means the early Middle Ages, although I don't think any serious person uses the term "dark ages" anymore. Augustine was certainly part of "late antiquity" or the "early middle ages"; 5 or 600 years after him is the central Middle Ages. In any case, it's a little much to give Augustine credit for starting the entire dark ages. He's just one guy, and since the dark ages didn't really exist anyway I guess we can't really accept that argument. I could help you with the Latin, although the Confessions, or anything by Augustine really, are a huge pain in the ass to read in the original. That probably wouldn't help any more than reading a translation. Isn't the point of this really that he thought Christianity was the cure for his problems? What more do you want to know? Adam Bishop (talk)

The bit about "The Dark Ages" was a comment to an inapropriate comment by (BOOP) to my original request.

My comment was to hilight the stupidness of that comment.

Unfortunately people of one dicipline take upon themselves to cross-over into commenting in this way on another.

Thanks for you comment.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for someone who is O fait with the Confessions. No, it wasn't like that, where you say he turned to Christianity for a cure and got it.

Thanks.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to MacOfJesus:

(1) It's "stupidity," not "stupidness,"

(2) it's "au fait," not "o fait," and

(3) I don't believe that my comment was inappropriate. I have yet to discover what "addiction" you are refering to. And while "getting religion" may, indeed, help some people with their difficulties, it (a) doesn't work for all, and (b) sometimes causes more problems than it cures.

On a slightly different point, as Augustine lived to within 25 years of the Fall of Rome (often taken as the marker for the dividing line between the Ancient and Medieval periods), he was not separated from the latter by centuries. I reiterate that the lack of interest in the world about us and a fixation on religion - both propounded in the Confessions - was the very hallmark of the Middle Ages, most especially the 600 years immdiately following Augustine. ,,,.And no, I am certainly not placing the blame for the millennial-long regression of knowledge at the feet of any one man, the attitude of the older Augustine did contribute to the zeitgeist of the Dark Ages.

B00P (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art question

I have been asked the question and I hope you can help... What is the 'CORE' connection between five of these ten paintings?

1. The Fall

2. Dana and Calysto

3. Cupid and Psyche

4. The Birth of Venus

5. Atlanta and Hippomenes

6. Judgement of Paris

7. Triumph of Bacchus

8. Dun and the Apple

9. Mercury, Herse, and Aglauros

10.Hercules in the Garden of Hesperides

I hope you can help me with the answer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.18.150 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all renaissance european works depicting classical antiquity? --Jayron32 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apples I expect, apples have cores don't you know. Apples or similar fruit are important parts of the stories of some of these paintings, although as there is more than one important work for some of these titles it is difficult to say which of the paintings are pomaceous. meltBanana 04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Our questioner was not so much an art fan as an Assassin's Creed fan, if this thread is anything to go by. :) Grutness...wha? 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]