Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 10

Army Life in the 19th Century

This is something I've been wondering about for a while. These days, when a person (let's say a man, to keep the pronouns simple) joins the army, he has regular time off and is able to visit family if he so wishes. When he is deployed to a warzone, he is still able to keep in contact whilst at base (through internet, but also by a regular postal service). Also, in the event that he is killed in action, his family are notified (fairly quickly). Now, how does this compare to a soldier in the 19th Century? Again, to keep it simple, let's say he's a British soldier. He enlists as a teen. How often would he be able to go back to his family's residence whilst still stationed in the UK? Whilst on active service abroad, would he be able to communicate at all with his family back home? I know that some of them had wives, sons, and daughters waiting for them. Then there is the question of if he was killed in action, or died of sickness, had a fatal accident, or disappeared without trace. How would his family be informed (if at all?) and how long would this normally take? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only answer a small part of the question, but I have seen ample references to letters to and from soldiers travelling frequently and with unexpected ease in the military system. Steewi (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, British soldiers were given leave when stationed in the UK. The British Forces Post Office has its origins in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-13). Additionally, married soldiers were sometimes allowed to take their wives with them, especially on postings to India, which were generally for 7 years in the 19th Century. The downside was that the wives were sometimes put in danger, notably in Afghanistan. Alansplodge (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, those soldiers had to buy their own ticket home from India. Officers had to buy their own uniforms, horses and equipment, which is why most were of the nobility and had money to support them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that can be right (about buying your own ticket home). A history of British troopships is here1. My Cornish grandmother used to tell a story about a troopship arriving in Plymouth from India when she was a girl (in the 1890s?). The soldiers disembarked and made merry in the pubs of Union Street as you would expect after 7 years abroad; however they started a major brawl and as a punishment set sail back to India the next day, for another 7 years. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, cheers! Now I just need to find some of those letters.... Thanks a lot! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

old proverb

Hi...Years ago, I remember hearing "an old proverb":

"Two hungry beggars each receiving a coin from a compassionate passerby...one of the beggars bought a bowl of rice, the other a flower...The beggar who bought the rice asked the other, "Why would you waste your coin on a flower when we are starving and need rice to live?"

The other beggar replied "Rice may give us life but a flower makes life worth living..."

My question is: Is there an attribute for this saying?...and do you know the full and correct version?...

Thanks in advance, CDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.117.209 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting: Forum discussion However this gives a different attribution. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And with any luck, maybe he bought a flower that's edible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Help me understand.... re: Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So, sodomy is forbidden under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the United States.

But isn't the UCMJ inferior to the Constitution and thus bound by its limitations too?

The US Supreme Court recognised in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy is "part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." Surely that means that sodomy in the military cannot be forbidden as well, as long as it's not happening on duty and other sensible exceptions? Or is it just that no-one has sued for being discharged with this argument?

--Sam 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

For historical and practical reasons, military law is largely independent of civilian law (though obviously they overlap considerably). Clearly the military legal system must respond at some level to the civilian system, but it is not automatically subject to precedents established in civilian courts. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Members of the armed forces certainly give up some 1st amendment rights (e.g. their right to express opinions critical of the Commander-in-Chief), and I would expect that they also give up certain 14th amendment protections, in terms of the privacy of their personal effects while serving. So I would not necessarily assume that serving members of the armed forces automatically enjoy the 14th amendment protections identified in that case. -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so who decides which rights from the Bill of Rights members of the armed forces enjoy? Is it generally based on legal precedent? -- SamUK (talk)

That would likely be a matter of policies that have accumulated and evolved over many generations. Think of the military as being kind of like a company. If you work for a company, you might have to give up some "freedoms". For example, openly criticizing your manager or harassing your co-workers could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. And if you work for, say, a petroleum company, participating openly in a demonstration against that company could also result in discipline or termination. As far as "private life" stuff is concerned, any organization might have policies about private life where it's thought that knowledge of that private life could be bad for morale. For example, if a Catholic priest were cohabiting with a woman and the children they had had together, there's a good chance they would dump him, regardless of how good a priest he was otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also it's important to keep in mind that policies do evolve. The "bad for morale" blanket has been used to cover a lot of things. Originally, troops were racially segregated. Harry Truman put an end to that, and the military survived. Then there was the matter of women in combat, which was also argued to be bad for morale, among other things, but women are commonplace in the combat zones now, as soldiers as opposed to just caregivers. The last stronghold, perhaps, is gays in the military. It wasn't too many years ago that that was considered extremely bad for morale. But that attitude seems to have softened in the last decade or two, and relaxing that rule further is probably just around the corner. Hence the "sodomy" question, which could have been used to "prove" someone was gay and subject to ejection from the military, would likely become irrelevant, unless they were doing it on duty or out of doors or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Another factor to consider in terms of "freedom of speech" is that while it may be forbidden to criticize your manager, there is typically a process that can be followed if you think your manager has violated policy in some way. Let's supposed your manager (or you company commander) is taking a night class and orders you to do his homework for him. Just saying "no" flat-out could get you in trouble, but there would typically be a process for bringing this up to human resources or whatever the equivalent authority would be, because doing someone's homework for them is not likely to be something they can require. And rather than you "taking the law into your hands", you turn the matter over to the experts and let them decide the "legality" of the order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking to yourself again, I see, Baseball Bugs. How about you not mindlessly indent your later thoughts when nobody else has intervened. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting snippy with the regulars again, I see. How about you keep your trap shut unless you have some potential thoughts in regards to the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I asked for that. But really, your wayward ways with indenting do cause confusion, which is unnecessary. Worse than that, counterproductive. Fortunately, such confusion is easy to avoid by following some simple rules. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the indentions. I find that multiple responses with the same indention are hard to follow, so I indent further. But maybe that's not standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I fear not. I know not. Definitely not. I've withdrawn "mindlessly". Indenting around here means some sort of response to the immediately preceding post; so it follows that if you're providing multiple responses to the same post, all those responses will be at the same level, unless someone else has come along in the meantime and you're now responding to them. See Wikipedia:Indentation, point 2. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't in such a hurry to reply, you could compose a proper response and bypass the need for multiple replies altogether. Matt Deres (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if he combined all his "answers," they would still be nothing but a bunch of random unsourced BS he conjured out of thin air, with no substantive relation whatsoever to the OP's original question and not much re the follow-up. So here's a real answer, as opposed to just making stuff up: the fact that a behavior is a "liberty protected by due process" does NOT mean that it can't be forbidden. Rather, it means that the behavior may be forbidden only if (to quote an actual WP article, Due process) "there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation of the right, and ... the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest" -- i.e., strict scrutiny applies. Lo and behold, another SOURCE (as opposed to random musings pulled out of one's butt), the WP article Sodomy laws in the United States, states that "In the U.S. military, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the statute banning sodomy. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the 'conduct falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court.' However, the court went on to say that despite Lawrence's application to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are 'factors unique to the military environment' which would place the conduct 'outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence.' Examples of such factors could be fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline." So THAT is the answer to the OP's question (and suggests answers to the follow-up). 63.17.80.31 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is deferential to national security and military issues. Korematsu v. United States, upholding the constitutionality of internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII, contains beautiful, sweeping language covering the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Propaganda and racial prejudice trumped the fundamental right described. Dred Scott and Korematsu are almost always mentioned as travesties of justice that hurt the Court and the country. Please forgive the spacing error.75Janice (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Tintin in the US

Tintin is popular throughout the world, but not in the US. Why an world-famous classic comics character like Tintin is not popular in the US??? Just curious. --Tintin rules (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article you cite, which discusses that exact question? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not convinced. The argument that portraying US negatively in Tintin in America is the reason behind this - i don't find this argument convincing. Does anyone have any other idea? --Tintin rules (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't buy that crap, man. I think the wonder-boy is loved all over  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Try reading past the fourth paragraph of the article; it suggests a number of reasons. The correct answer, of course, is a matter of opinion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of Tintin (apparently not to be confused with Rin Tin Tin), but I had never heard of Winnetou either, until a few years ago. Books may be successful in one country and unknown in another, for any number of reasons, not the least of which would be marketing (or lack thereof). Harry Potter and Babar, for example, have been fairly well known here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I too have never heard of Tintin (I'm American). Falconus^{p t c} 16:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Growing up in here in rural Virginia 40 years ago, I chanced upon some Tintin comics in a doctor's office and begged for the rest. There is a company named Objectif Lune (Destination Moon) in Montreal that I used to work with— their techs were surprised that I had heard of Tintin. But, I have to agree that many Americans never heard of Tintin. I had never heard of Asterix until I lived in Germany. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Asterix the Gaul was very rude about us Brits in "Asterix in Britain", but it is, apparently, the best selling Asterix book in English[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tintin, Asterix, and the Smurfs - culturally superior to Mickey Mouse? 92.15.13.115 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not bloody likely! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think more Americans will heard of Tintin after the release of The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn by Steven Spielberg. --Tintin rules (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

American, and don't know Tintin, what the hell is happening, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT (I know CAPs mean shouting, I am shouting).Christ on bike ! This is perhaps what he meant when a certain, yes, a very certain philosopher said - spiritual hollowness at the core of American civilisation. That explains why you killed a Sikh after 11 September, that's like killing a jew to avenge Auschwitz war crimes ! (Sikhs are biggest victims of islamists !) I remember one hungarian matron who was so fed up with American culture's invasion of her land - my kids don't know who King Stephen was, she cried, but they know who Stephen King is... Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm an American, and I grew up reading Tintin. I first encountered it when I was in the first grade, my teacher had Tintin comics for us to read. My parents bought us more. And Asterix as well. Now I buy them for all my friend's kids. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use in Japan

Does Japan have anything similar to fair use? --138.110.206.99 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer (Japanese or otherwise), but our (somewhat sketchy) article on Japanese copyright law has a section on exceptions which sound an awful lot like fair use sorts of things. If you Google "Japan fair use" you'll see there are a lot of stories from 2008 saying that Japan was thinking of adopting US-style fair use provisions, but I don't see anything that says what happened to that proposal. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Have terrorists watched American movies?

I'm wondering if even the most militant religious ones still watch American movies? I'm thinking they might not see the violence as a fantasy, but be taught by the movies that that is the way to do things. 92.15.5.169 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As are Americans, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think looking towards cinema violence as an explanation for terrorist behavior is going to be pretty much a dead end. Looking at US cinema exports (along with other cultural exports) as a way in which the rest of the world "knows America" and has perceptions about it is probably more fruitful. In any case, people living in the Middle East in general have plenty of "real life" examples of violence being "the way to do things"— the entire region has been in different types of local wars for ages, now. The average Afghan, Iranian, or Iraqi almost certainly has far more direct experience with violence—its advantages and limitations—than the average American. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the backgrounds of many terrorists, many are from well-educated, sometimes affluent families. Think of the Christmas bomber over Detroit, for example. Chances are, with that kind of upbringing and such, he was plenty smart enough to know. I can't say for sure, of course. Think of the 9/11 pilots, too. They lived in the US, met the regular folk. i doubt they took the movies as reality. Aaronite (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is not to say that these people don't understand what it means to be cinematic. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seems to have taken particular inspiration from Hollywood special effects, how to create a real spectacle. People get flack for saying so—because it isn't pretty—but the 9/11 attacks were brilliant from a media-management point of view. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant indeed from the strategic standpoint. It caught the USA flatfooted. But at the time it generated a lot of sympathy for the USA and put us on the moral high road, so I'm not so sure it was good from media-management. Unfortunately, our own politicians took us down from that high road. In general, though, movies are often blamed for "giving people ideas", especially in the area of violent crimes; but if those folks were already predisposed towards violent behavior, they would find a way to channel it eventually, movies or no movies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends whose sympathies you want. Bin Laden is not interested in the liberal democracies. He was interested in impressing those who were already opposed to the US, which I think he did a pretty good job of. He was also interested in having his organization positioned as the "ultimate terrorists" (that was KSM's motivation, anyway), which he did an excellent job of. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if for example militant religious terrorists would have watched US movies, or if they would not watch them because it is forbidden. 92.15.13.115 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're asking how likely is it that the average suicide bomber is also a movie buff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. 92.15.3.130 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP will want to read Media violence research and judge the extent to which examples in media unequivocally provoke violence in any audience.--Wetman (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

People keep misinterpreting the question. All I want to know is: have people who become religious terrorists watched American movies, or are they banned by their religion, in which case they will not have seen them? I once saw a photo of the young Osama Bin Laden wearing flared trousers in the seventies, which suggests that he watched movies as well. I understand that the Taliban forbade watching television or movies. Where does the average religious terrorist fit on this dimension? 92.15.3.130 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One reason people keep failing to answer your question is that it asks for a general answer that can not be given. There is not one homogeneous group of people who become religious terrorists. They come from a variety of different backgrounds. Many will have watched these moves, some have not. Whether they are banned to by their religion depends mostly on the individual situation. There is not one interpretation of the rules, not even one set of rules. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's more likely that the reason is that the information is not available. 92.28.255.202 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that virtually everyone in the younger generation that has grown up in the Gulf countries (regardless of political and religious views) have consumed a fair share of American music, movies and tv shows, and are well aware of American society and culture. In Afghanistan this might be a little different, where Bollywood is far more popular than Hollywood and where kids (especially in rural areas) didn't have access to cinemas/videos whilst growing up. --Soman (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the 9/11 report, KSM purchased "a few movies depicting hijackings" when planning the 9/11 attacks, and was fairly well-aware of Western culture. This is notable because many of those who flew the planes were not; KSM was considerably better educated and intellectually far more active than the "muscle" on the planes. (Who were themselves distinct from the pilots, in terms of education and upbringing.) The report doesn't specify which movies, or whether they were Hollywood products or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Was the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile?

I keep hearing he was a pedophile. Where does this come from? Is it true? ScienceApe (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He married one of his wives when she was six or seven and consummated at age nine. Standards change; by the standards of his time, this wasn't unusual. See Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that they consummated as soon as she was capable of bearing children. That's from the ancient times, when the primary purpose of sex was considered to be reproduction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, is there a reason you feel capable of generalizing about attitudes towards sex in 7th century Arabia? The idea that in "ancient times," sex was just about reproduction is ridiculous and false on the surface of it. Ever hear of the Greeks or the Kama Sutra or any of the other bajillion complicated sexual expressions that have existed as long as we have human records for? The idea that people in the 8th century, or the 1st, or the 15th, somehow lacked complicated sexual lives and attitudes is obviously false if you look for even a minute at the complicated history of human sexuality. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Prior to the 20th century, there was little knowledge about contraception, and indeed having large families was considered a good thing. Having multiple wives made for an even larger family. The social changes and attitudes separating procreational and recreational sex have been relatively recent. Trying to apply current standards even to the 1950s is risky, let alone hundreds of years earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're generalizing wildly about a subject you clearly don't know much about. Really, honestly, just read the article I linked to, for an introduction. It is not the case, at all, that people were having sex just for reproduction and having massive families prior to 1950. That's a blatantly ignorant statement. While it's true that the pill certainly changed a things, especially in the United States, to over-exaggerate about its effects or the prurient state of the world beforehand is just ignorant, and an insult to the large, large body of historical research on this topic which has been going on for decades. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In my family tree, which we know back to the 1600s in some cases, there are a number of instances of cousins marrying - all before 1900. Cousins marrying is kind of frowned upon now but was common in those days. We also have instances of brides being 14, 15, 16 - which is kind of frowned upon nowadays also. I am not totally ignorant of this subject, sir or madam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

all that notwithstanding, early marriage (for both girls and boys) was a broadly accepted cultural norm in almost every region of the world. the modern 'late marriage' model in the west is a function of a number of different trends: aristocratic/bourgeois politics (where marriage between children was often used to seal political/financial alliances), the development of a professional class (where women actually had options in life aside from making a good marriage), increasing levels of literacy and education driven by technological demands, Christian ethics that put an emphasis on chastity and patience (and made it a matter of personal damnation rather than social embarrassment).

but whatever. the whole "Muhammed was a pedophile" thing is just a bit of tawdry Islamophobic idiocy. you'll hear the same thing about almost any religious figure in any faith, from some lowbrow fool (e.g. Jesus: an unmarried adult male who lacks sexual interest in women, but shows numerous examples of his fondness for children... suffer those children, baby.). --Ludwigs2 17:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Having sex with 9-year old girls has not been the broadly accepted and unquestioned norm throughout most human societies and cultures over the course of history, and trying to justify it by asserting the contrary would seem to be little more than the most simplistic and cheaply cynical form of unintelligent moral ultra-relativism. Furthermore, the basic accusation against Muhammad is based on Muslim sources which the vast majority of Islamic legal-religious scholars accepted (and did not see as problematic) until the matter became caught up in Muslim-Christian religious debates in the 20th century. Therefore your attempted analogy with Jesus is lacking in any relevance or interest, since there there are no comparable simple factual assertions in the Bible which would directly lead to the conclusion that Jesus had an abnormal sexuality, without resort to elaborate exegesis and interpretation... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your argument, 'getting married' and 'having sex' are distinct ideas. did you know, for instance, that Mahatma Gandhi was married at 13 (to a 14 year old girl), though each continued to live with their parents for years afterward? children might get engaged by their parents as young as 6 in many traditional cultures (where marriages are arranged by parents with the best interests of the children in mind). and they will happily live in marital bliss without sex until their parents decide it's time for them to begin living as man and wife. so do you think Gandhi was a pedophile as well, or would that have been his wife; or maybe you think it was their parents that were pedophiles for forcing their children to get married?

With Muhammed, we know that he had sexual interest in adult women (that is rare among true pedophiles, who usually have difficulty forming mature attachments). can you say the same for Jesus? --Ludwigs2 02:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, for roughly a century or so widespread child marriage has been recognized by many people genuinely concerned about human rights as a pernicious practice which very often has many negative effects (including by many social critics within societies which practice frequent child marriage). When people in modern societies read about a 6-year old boy being engaged to a 4-year girl, we may think that it sounds somewhat quaint and picturesque (though we don't choose to live that way ourselves), but when we read about a 30-year old man having sex with a 9-year old girl, then our reaction is much more likely to be one of visceral disgust -- and I really don't see what the point of your attempt to blur and confuse this useful distinction is. Second, Muhammad doesn't seem to have been averse to using divine revelations to get what he wanted on occasion (the point of Qur'an verse 33:50 is that it gives Muhammad the right to take an unlimited number of simultaneous wives, while his male followers were restricted to four simultaneous wives, etc.), and the clear testimony of the Ahadith is that Muhammad wanted Aisha. Frankly, it would have been nice if the replies to this question could have gone a just a little bit beyond cheaply-cynical "moral equivalence" ultra-relativism (which really explains nothing and resolves nothing). AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The pseudo-scholarly pedophile, formerly pædophile, was coined by the German psychiatrist Krafft-Ebing who coined the term pedophilia in 1886. In English the word is so recent it doesn't appear in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: new words for new views. For the former approach, look no further than your local Roman Catholic Church--Wetman (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The attempted analogy between Muhammad and pedophile priests really fails to offer any relevant insight, and also fails as an attempt at crude "moral equivalence" reasoning -- the Islamic religion holds up Muhammad as the ideal human being, whose behavior all other humans should emulate and imitate, but no one holds up pedophile priests as a model for imitations. AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially related to the OP´s question is the research of Harvard researcher Susan Clancy on pedophilia. From a recent lengthy article on Ms Clancy (read in German / no link available), I may summarise: 1) The general public concept of pedophilia (as a rape of infants) is mostly incorrect. There may be no / limited trauma initially involved in children. 2) The situation of the adult "victim" of a pedophile act to cope with this memory is therefore much more complicated.

If we apply Dr (?) Clancy´s findings to historical periods (classical Greece, Aisha bint Abu Bakr) we may , indeed, come to conclusions which do not fit current values. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Social norms vary with time. RC priests (who may or may not be pedophiles) are certainly held up as models for imitation, though not so to me personally either. Neologisms are not coined until they become necessary, one major usefulness of etymology.--Wetman (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Even more recently, girls have become pregnant at a very young age. Lina Medina, for example. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Football offside rule manipulation

I neither know or care anything about football, but could Team A prevent Team B from ever scoring by all members of Team A staying near Team B's goal, so that any member of Team B that approached Team A's goal would be offside and could not score? Ignoring for the sake of arguement very long kicks from one end of the pitch to the other. Thanks 92.15.13.115 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would only take one player who could run more quickly than the other team's closest player to kick the ball part way up the pitch, chase it down and repeat until they were close enough to shoot.Prokhorovka (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Add in that you cannot be offside in your own half and that instantly makes half the pitch 'free' in terms of movement. ny156uk (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Following on from Prokhorovka's point you are only offside if the ball is played forward to you - so it doesn't just take one faster person, it could be 2,3, 4 or more players all bursting forward and provided the ball is played backwards (the player that receives it can move forward with the ball) then there's no offside. Basically there's nothing stopping your team A trying this tactic but it would be a shocking tactical mistake. ny156uk (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Following up on the OP's question somewhat: Presumably you're talking soccer here. Just so we're clear, if you yourself are dribbling the ball, you can pretty much go anywhere you like with it, as long as your teammates don't precede you into the "attacking zone", right? (pardon the hockey terminology) Now, let's suppose it's the World Cup final and you have a 1-goal lead with roughly a minute left to play in the match. Could you legally stack all your players in your own zone in a kind of "prevent defense" to try and hold off any attackers in that final minute? I'm not saying that would be good strategy, but would there by any rule against it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The player with the ball can go anywhere (within the pitch obviously). Players without the ball can be in offside positions provided they are not 'interfering' with play. If you've got a 1 goal lead with a minute left to play yes you put 11 men behind the ball and make it difficult for them to get through -it's not illegal but then it's nothing to do with the offside rule either (you wouldn't put 11 men in-front of the ball to try catch them offside as that would be a stupid tactic). ny156uk (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And having re-re-read the question I understand it now, and the point was already made that the simple answer is "no", because you can't be called for offside in your own zone of the field. Interestingly, this strategy does work in basketball, in a different way, i.e. you have ten seconds to get out of your half of the court, and a properly-stacked defense can prevent that and force a turnover, although it doesn't happen very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Greek name of rhetorical device.

What is the name, in Greek, of the rhetorical device wherein we use a verb normally associated with a certain noun for a different one, for which it is strictly speaking inappropriate. (you can think of a million examples, just read my definition carefully. Here is one example: buildings and such things are "erected", so if you say "there Nature erected a placid lake", you are using the Greek rhetorical device to which I refer.) Or you can think of any technical verbs, a verb you use for milling steel or setting type or whatever, applied to something, for rhetorical effect, to which the verb does not normally apply. 84.153.185.122 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just your plain old metaphor, I am fairly sure. "He mined that book for facts" is a metaphor ("book are mines", in the terms that linguists use for conceptual metaphors). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(op) it has a specific name when you use a verb like apprehend with a noun that we don't see with it - the horizon apprehended the sun. or the rain burned through the desert air. yes metaphor, but it has a specific Greek name, when you use "burn" with water, which doesn't. what is that Greek word? 92.230.68.108 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Catachresis? That's more general, as is metonymy. I can't think of a word which means only what you're saying. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Metonymy is something quite different. I'm not sure there is a specialized Greek term for what the original poster wants... I suspect he/she is confused and is misremembering/associating something else (like metonymy, or synecdoche, or simile). There are a lot of specific types of metaphor but none that I can see relate only to verbs and nouns. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ColinFine has hit it with catachresis.--Wetman (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)