Humanities desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Jeffrey Dahmer and his homosexuality

Hi, can anybody tell me what did Jeffrey Dahmer think about his homosexuality? I am studying psychology and I am really interested in him, we're studying him and we know now that he was not an evil man, but sick, he didn't really want to kill, and we'd like to know his opinion on his homosexuality?. May you help me?, thank you. --190.50.100.195 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article (the things I read for the Ref Desk's sake), Dahmer was found to be sane prior to his trial. In legal terms that would suggest he commmitted the murders voluntarily. Contrary to your comment, he did then "want to kill". In the final analysis, whether the man was sick or evil, I shall leave to others to consider. I found no commentary referencing his views on homosexuality. Bielle (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He didn't really want to kill"? I recall reading that he was killing and dissecting small animals when he was 5 years old. He was fascinated with death and control, which was a hallmark of the way he conducted his murders. He was a looney. But he was also aware of what he was doing, so he was legally sane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make him a sociopath, right? Someone who rationally acts in a way that would be entirely irrational to the average mind in society with it's social inhibitions? —Akrabbim^talk 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair way to put it. The typical serial killer fits that description. Basically they lack a conscience, or empathy for others. Some would say they lack a soul. But one thing worth pointing out, which is at least vaguely in line with what part of what the OP is saying - Dahmer is the only serial killer I've heard of who at least pretended to have some remorse for what he did. Most of them are defiantly narcissistic to the very end. As to what he thought of his orientation, I can't say, but several sources about him are given in the Jeffrey Dahmer article. Because he was murdered by an inmate, just a couple of years after incarceration, I'm not so sure the experts had enough time to study him thoroughly. But the books writen about him might say otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you what he thought of his own sexuality, and we'll never know now. But whether his sexual partners were same-sex or other-sex, it's a bizarre sort of sexuality where your main interest in the other person is killing and eating them. I think he was the sort of homosexual (if that's really the right label for him, about which I have my doubts) who gives homosexuality a bad name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six degrees of separation

My wife is going to be doing some business with the Trapp Family Lodge. So this has me curious about the six degrees of separation. Assuming that she meets Johannes von Trapp, or even Sam von Trapp, who is the most interesting/famous/etc (use your own definitions for those subjective terms) with whom I am, at most, six degrees away from? Would Hitler be within that six degrees? I see that Sam worked as a model for Ralph Lauren. Is it out of the ordinary for him to have met Lauren himself? If yes, then that puts me within striking distance of pretty much every major clothing designer of the last 75 years... Don't worry, I'm not looking for an exhaustive list. Just an interesting one. And yes, I'm asking this strictly out of personal curiosity. :-P Dismas|^(talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye ghods. Could be anyone - Hitler almost certainly. As a starting point, Captain Georg von Trapp was a highly-decorated officer and very likely met at least one Austrian or Austro-Hungarian head of state. So you can go many places from that - including most likely to Hindeburg and Hitler. In another direction, it's very likely that one or more of the family acted in a supervising capacity of some form on the film and/or musical, so you could get to quite a bit of the world of show business from there. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the six degrees thing is that you're a short distance away from basically everyone. Yes, if you are European, you're almost certainly six degrees from Hitler, the Pope, the Pope before him, Churchill, Dame Judy Dench and basically anyone else famous in the last century. 83.250.228.169 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It doesn't take much work to find connections if you want to. My mum once met Tony Blair, so I can get to most of the rich and famous through that connection. I expect most people could find an acquaintance that has met a top politician and they have typically met enormous numbers of people (including top politicians in other countries that have met enormous number of people in their country). Journalists are a good intermediary step - if you've met one famous person, they will have met plenty of journalists who will have met loads of other famous people. --Tango (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of famous designers, let me tell you that my son's godmother's (now ex-)husband's sister's husband is Pierre Cardin's second cousin. I kid you not. Synchronistically, I started the article on Maria von Trapp. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the folly of the original question has been sufficiently pointed out. And after talking to my brother about this, I find that I'm not that far from Hitler through him via Rommel. But thanks to Grutness who pointed out the show business "branch" if you will. Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us are apparently closer than we think, to a Brush With Grutness. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some are born Grut, some achieve Grutness, and some have Grutness thrust upon'em!" —— Shakescene (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Fuff. For what it's worth, I got my username (and the name of my art studio) from here. BTW, I am a part-time journalist who has met several people famous enough to know many overseas famous people (I count the following among my friends and acquaintances, among others: 1, 2, 3, I've met both 4 and 5, and am a friend of someone who had a major supporting role in one of 6's early films). You may well be only six degrees away from me :) Grutness...wha? 23:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got you one degree, via 5. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you count seeing someone nearby, then I'm three links away from Hitler. 92.29.91.83 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update on "I Love the Islands"

I was wondering if all of the "I Love the Islands" benefit concerts have been performed yet? If so, how much money has been raised so far? Plus, I'd like to know more about the "Hope for Samoa" benefit concert. Please let me know if more information available. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wellington one's still to be held. They've raised over $NZ 250,000 so far - more info at [1] and various other google news links at [2]. Hopefully someone will write an article on it (is that what the info you're asking for is for?) Grutness...wha? 08:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, yes it was. There was also this benefit concert called "Hope for Samoa". It was put on by the Katinas. I'm also hoping someone would write an article on that one, as well.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Parkinson

Who is Nancy Parkinson? In 1966 she has visited German President Heinrich Lübke. Has she changed her name after divorce/marriage. Please help. Regards 78.55.104.150 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by courtesy of the "German WP-Helpdesk": Nancy Parkinson. --Grey Geezer 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Thanks a lot :-). I gave her 2 sub-categories in commons:Category:Nancy Parkinson. Perhaps somebody wants to add some more. Regards 78.55.104.150 (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are rights part of deontological ethics?

The impression I got was that consequentialism is about the ends, deontological ethics the means, and virtue ethics the reason. This doesn't fit with rights thing though, as rights are clearly part of the ends. For example, if I were to vote for a proposition that violated a right, the actual act I'm taking is filling in a bubble or punching a hole or something like that. The actual rights violation is just a consequence of my actions. — DanielLC 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"De-ontology," as the name implies, is concerned with how things ought to be as opposed to how things are (or will become). Its focus is on abstractions like principles, ideals, Kantian "good-willfulness," intentions, etc. The notion of "rights" falls into this category. Wikiscient 20:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from δέον (deon) which means obligation or duty. The first sentence of the article says that it comes from examining acts, and the third states that a good act can produce bad consequences. You just seem to be describing ethics in general. — DanielLC 02:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well how 'bout that! :S (And, yes, this source does indeed back that etymology up).

Still, though, even if that's not what the etymology is, it remains in my view very much what the etymology just as well could be, lol! ;) Wikiscient 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand what we mean by "rights". "Human rights" is a _legal_ concept; if your human rights are violated, you can (theoretically) go to a court and receive appropriate compensation. The existence of a human right depends on the existence of a legal document (a Bill of Rights, or an international convention) that spells it out, and a court that can enforce it. "Natural rights" is a _moral_ concept; various philosophers, most notably John Locke, consider there to be various self-evident propositions which _would_ be enforceable as (human) rights in a morally-ideal society. Now, Ethics is concerned with the general concept of "right" and "wrong" - deontological ethics (mainly associated with Kant) asserts that being "right" involves "doing one's duty". This isn't necessarily associated with a "natural-rights" view of morality, although Kant did subscribe to it. On the OP's example, a consequentialist might say "I should vote against this proposition, as it will cause suffering to those whose (legal) rights it takes away," or, indeed, "I should vote for this proposition, as it will make those who support it happy, and they're in the majority." The deontological ethicist might say "It's my duty to vote against this proposition, as it's unjust, even though it has popular support." Note that the _consequences_ of the proposition being passed don't come into it. See Fiat justitia caelum ruat. Tevildo (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are difficult concepts for analytical denotations. As the school thoughts dismay as such the occurrences are interwoven in their reciprocal reliance, whether the consequences only to be the ends for any actions, or the actions are the means and ends, is a conceptual illusion.

On the question why rights are part of deontological ethics, one might argue that the current actions are important (at least in lesser degree) to allow human rights that are universal to humanity, rather than saying that natural rights are the consequential ends in any actions (in avoiding human rights) from the stand point ofconsequentialism.

Nevill Fernando (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The deontological ethicist might say 'It's my duty to vote against this proposition, as it's unjust, even though it has popular support.'" If by unjust you mean that it violates natural rights, certainly the violation is a consequence of the proposition. If not, there was no mention of rights. Granted, classical consequentialists would argue that it isn't your duty to vote, and you should only do it if it's sufficiently likely to change the ballot, but there are some who won't (act consequentialists and similar) and they're still considered consequentialist. I just read that natural rights page and found this: "It is also difficult to reconcile the concept that one has a natural right to something if it does not create a corresponding, enforceable duty upon the state or a society." Perhaps a "natural right" is really just shorthand for saying that someone else has a duty to provide me with something. If this is true, it would mean that if my right was fulfilled because of someone without that duty, they did not fulfill their duty, and my right was essentially still violated. Is this correct? — DanielLC 04:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good definition of a _legal_ right. A _natural_ right is (theoretically) one that can be deduced from abstract principles. If natural rights exist, then an ideal (or even merely adequate) society should reflect them in its laws. However, unless the right _is_ codified legally, it has no practical consequences. The phrase "Nonsense on stilts" hasn't been used yet in this discussion, so I'll take the opportunity to do so. :) Tevildo (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bezos---Amazon---Seattle

According to the article Jeff Bezos, Bezos "founded Amazon.com in 1994 after making a cross country drive from New York to Seattle, writing up the Amazon business plan on the way and setting up the original company in his garage."

Does anyone know why he did this? No obvious personal connection to Seattle/Washington. Business regulations? Workforce? Tax?

Thanks Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. --Sean 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sean Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic stock prices

Do you know where I could find historic stock market prices from the first decades of the NYSE (which was founded in 1792)? Thanks. MMMMM742 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no across-the-board records kept of daily prices.--Wetman (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try contemporary newspapers. At least in Europe many newspapers featured stock market and currency prices as far back as the early 18th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality at the Centre

how do we place quality as a center of every organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.49.21.3 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a suitable question for a reference desk. There is no factual answer that you can find your a reference for - it is a matter of opinion. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an impossibly nebulous question. Every organization? Why not just start with one in particular. The devil is in the details. Second, who is 'we'? You? Me? We all have different agendas. And third, what do you mean by 'quality'? Does this mean placing the customer first? Because if you do that you may as well provide your service for free, in which case you'll soon go under. Vranak (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Project triangle, sometimes known as PQT or some permutation thereof: Price, Quality, Time. You can't have all three, you have to choose which two you will focus on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TQM 89.242.151.212 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you need to set up an incentive system whereby every person's paycheck depends upon the quality of their work. Note that this means that other things which you might also think are important (like getting work done quickly), will now be less important to the employees than quality work. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple. It all starts from the top (whether the will of shareholders or a single proprietor/CEO). That said, every in the original question is an unnecessary generalization; some organizations are designed for other specific goals where quality concern is a distant third. That is, a heroin lab must enforce basic quality, but their suppliers, weed growers in Afghan hills ... they just grow weed. NVO (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which public school did James Jordan go to?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.188.238 (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which James Jordan? Dismas|^(talk) 19:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Of Mrs Beeton's Kitchen Garden

This book was published in 2006. It looks like a reproduction of Victorian writings as it has Victorian-style illustrations in it, yet Chapter One mentions the Eden Project, which was only built a few years ago. No author is given. I did not think Mrs Beeton wrote anything much about gardening - am I wrong? I find it disturbing to read a book and not know if I'm reading a genuine compilation of Mrs Beaton's lesser known writings, or something written by someone recently, or some other out-of copyright old text that has been added to and passed off as being by Mrs Beeton. I believe there are a series of similar books recently published and purporting to be by Mrs Beeton. Does anyone know from when the text originates from and who is the real author? 89.242.151.212 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read one of the "Best of Mrs. Beeton" cookbooks at the local bookstore and noticed that every recipe was modern. I suspect that "Mrs. Beeton" is being used the way that writers of slapdash dictionaries use "Webster" - both names are in the public domain, so anyone can attach them to any book they want. (The well-known dictionary publisher is Merriam-Webster, not just Webster.) However, Mrs. Beeton did write a book of household management so it's possible that she did mention gardening. --NellieBly (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Hughes' biography, The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton, is introduced in this bit from Times on Line, 2005. .--Wetman (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter three mentions telephones, which had not been invented in Mrs Beetons time. As a copy of her Household Management book was a fixture in my childhood home I have read or looked at most of it, and it does not include any gardening. So regrettfully it seems the publisher has tried to pass off some modern text as being by Mrs Beeton, which seems a foolish thing to do. The link to the Times is not working. 78.146.96.70 (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's working for me now, and it states that the publishers deliberately pretended for marketing reasons that Mrs. Beeton was still alive and writing books. Of course, this sort of thing still goes on. Several Robert Ludlum novels appeared after his death with only a small note to the effect that another author had been involved in producing a publishable book. Books of card-game rules with Edmond Hoyle's name in the title were still appearing in the late 20th century, 200-250 years after his death. (And I have a photocopy of the title page of an "autograph edition", with his name as sole author and his signature reproduced on the title page, 150 years after his death.) Similarly with Peter Roget and thesauruses and Noah Webster and dictionaries. The person's name becomes a brand name, which one company may or may not have trademark rights in. --Anonymous, 20:05 UTC, October 25, 2009, missing words finally added 23:48 UTC, October 27, 2009.

And thanks to this, I've got that biography out of the library. Looks interesting: thanks desk! 86.144.144.110 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]