Humanities desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 17

Lips on Characters in Japanese Manga/Anime

I was discussing Japanese manga and anime with a friend and he asked me a question. He said he'd noticed that bad guys tend to have huge lips, then asked me why. I do admit, I had seen them before many a time, but never really thought to ask anyone. Does anyone know? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it is just convention... so readers know "this is a bad guy". Similar to the old Hollywood convention of bad guys in westerns wear black hats. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Japanese people generally do not have thick lips, compare this with this. There is nothing new about demeaning stereotypes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image verifications

Can anybody tell me if this image called Queen Kapiolani's House is the exact same image as Ainahau - Kaiulani's House.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. They're different photographs of what appears to be the same house. APL (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm guessing. They look the same so the book that I got the first image from is wrong in identifying the occupant of the house.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody decipher what this image is saying? I get some of it but can't read the handwriting very well. Also is it an authentic signature?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've got most of it already on the image page. The first line says "I was sick and ye visited me." --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ye? Really? What is the letter before Damien and the loop in between Damien and Veuster

The letter before Damien is almost certainly a J. As our article says, his given name was Jozef. Not sure about the other one. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "I was Sick and ye visited me / J Damien "*" Veuster / Kalavao Moolokai Dec, 20th 1888" to me. The "*" might be @ or & or a letter like D or L or E. 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks exactly like the "d" on the line above. Father Damien says he was original "Jozef De Veuster". (The source quotes for his original name spells it "de Veuster")., --ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also can someone tell me what the faded print in this image say?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that it says "Catholic Church" above the roof, and at the bottom it says "View of Gofit cloister....". 2.97.220.86 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is art in paint?

why is art in paint cant it be with pople love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.130.182 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a title. I think the OP means: "Why is art in paint? Why cannot it be with people's love?" 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple songs, poems, and written works, including a 3 volume poem by Ovid, on "The Art of Love." Love seems to be more an artform than a scientific or engineering area. ("Introductory engineering principles of love, with differential equations?" I think not. Edison (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the question is that art allegedly cannot be "with pople love". Citation required. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is: Why is art made with paint—can't art be made with people's love? In other words—why can't the "material" that art is made with be people's love? Or, to state it again—can't love be the material of art? Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid says it can be. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's hard to put love in a frame and sell it to collectors. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh sentence because of Royal connection?

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14150800 1) Am I correct in thinking that if Mr and Mrs Bloggs had been in the nearby car, and not Mr and Mrs Windsor, then he would have only have got a few weeks of Community Service? 2) What other crimes would get a sixteen month prison sentence? 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking and entering? Theft? According to the article, the guy also kicked in a store window and stole a mannequin leg. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A key factor in sentencing is the convict's previous criminal record. The couple of articles I've just skimmed don't mention whether he has a previous criminal record or not, but if he does then that could easily explain the severity of the sentence. --Tango (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only an opinion but a major factor was that he climbed up the The Cenotaph which didnt go down well with the general public rather than the royal connection, He claimed he had not realised the significance of the memorial - an excuse the judge rejected. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An understandable rejection: this muggins does study history at Cambridge. I doubt being off his face on acid and Valium held much clout as an excuse. A comparable case is that of student Philip Laing, who was hauled up in front of a judge in 2009 for urinating against a war memorial while drunk. According to our article, outraging public decency can carry an unlimited custodial sentence or unlimited fine. Brammers (talk/c) 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he protesting college fees actually? Money should not been an issue here....

I'm tempted to wonder how long it will be before the judge is knighted for services to Royalty. (Hope airing that thought won't bring the judicial mallet down on me). 2.101.4.118 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking is free and neither necessarily "correct" nor "incorrect", but the OP's thought no. 1) can only be speculation. Having only the linked article to go on, I find the judge's expressed outrage at Gilmour's disrespect of war dead disproportionate to his mild acceptance that Gilmour's behaviour was not part of violent disorder. Man doses self into inebriated frenzy on mixture of alcohol, valium and illegal narcotic and goes on rampage of destruction, theft, vandalism and attempted assault seems to sum it up. The sentence of 16 months housing at Her Majesty's expense is unremarkable but a more economical and effective lesson would be that practised in Singapore, as can be attested by Michael P. Fay whose bottom may help him think twice before vandalising cars again. Add strokes for Gilmour because his hair is too long, doubtless some new pop fad that will go over. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the accused had read our article on The Cenotaph, Whitehall, he might indeed have been unaware that it is our national war memorial, because it doesn't actually mention the fact. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guilty Gilmour could read the dates of WW1 and WW2 plus "The Glorious Dead" on the memorial. Uniformed service personnel salute the Cenotaph every year on Remembrance Sunday, a ceremony televised each year by the BBC since 1946. WP:DUCK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. My comment was a tongue-in-cheek of saying that the intro to the page doesn't point out what it's for. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now tweaked that article's text a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military personnel in uniform salute the Cenotaph every time they pass it. Not just once a year.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an element of "pour encourager les autres" about it. It doesn't matter how much money one has, by the way, it is possible to feel solidarity with people whose life experiences are not yours! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to (1) is a definite "no". He pleaded guilty to violent disorder, which almost always results in a lengthy custodial sentence. (It's the next step down from riot in the catalogue of English public order offences.) A sentence of 32 months was given to Edward Woollard - the 18-year-old who threw a fire extinguisher off a building - for the same offence. The answer to (2) is extremely broad, as all sorts of offences might merit a sentence of that length, when the circumstances of the offence and the history of the offender are taken into account. But as a guide, you could look at various sentencing guidelines to get a basic idea. (Bear in mind that offenders receive a discount for a guilty plea, so Mr Gilmour's sentence of 16 months reflects a notional sentence after a trial of about 2 years.) Proteus (Talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought plea bargaining didn't happen in the UK? It was proposed recently by Kenneth Clarke, but because of public opinion being against it, was dropped by David Cameron. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a plea bargain, it's a pretty much automatic discount for anyone who pleads guilty. The earlier you plead guilty, the more discount you get (a third for a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity down to a tenth for a guilty plea on the day of trial; in fact there's a guideline specifically addressing the various levels on the page I linked to earlier). What was proposed by Ken Clarke was an increase in the greatest discount from a third to a half, and it was that that caused a public outcry (mainly, it would seem, from people who didn't realise that it was a proposed alteration to a system that already exists rather than a brand new policy - as usual, the British media's reporting on the criminal justice system was absolutely useless). Proteus (Talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a woman was prosecuted for urinating on a war memorial recently. How long did she get? 2.97.209.26 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lewis is one, but the crime seems oddly common. She was sentenced to a 15 month suspended sentence. [1].--Kateshortforbob _talk 09:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what she did seems little different than what Gilmour did, yet she only got a suspened sentence. 92.28.249.93 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of violent disorder. Violence usually carries a greater sentence that something that is simply offensive. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis kicked a police officer twice - I'd call that violent. But Gilmour did not appear to direct any violence against any person. He did throw a bin at a car, kick a window in, and fool around on a war memorial, but he did not assault anyone. 2.101.5.83 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By his plea, Mr Gilmour accepted that he (and at least two others) "used or threatened unlawful violence" and that his conduct (taken together with that of the two or more others) was "such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety". And it seems that Ms Lewis pleaded guilty to assaulting a constable, which has a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment (compared to the maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for violent disorder). The main sentence in her case was for outraging public decency. Proteus (Talk) 12:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Penny, aka @pennyred, is a young documenter of the protests. She met Gilmour the night before, and clocked him as trouble. She's written up her impressions of him, and the sentence, for the New Statesman: Does Charlie Gilmour really deserve a 16 month prison service?".

I have every reason to consider Charlie Gilmour a prize dickhead. But 16 months? Really? Sixteen months for going on a bender and attempting to damage some property? Sixteen months for setting fire to some newspaper and jumping on the bonnet of a car? Charlie Gilmour is many things, but he's not dangerous, unless you happen to be a bottle of Gordon's Gin. ...Gilmour is, of course, the ideal tabloid scapegoat for those who would prefer to believe that all young people involved in political struggle are spoilt, drug-addled and reckless. ...While Gilmour was not sentenced for his actions at the Cenotaph, he was told that his actions were 'reprehensible', and that the eminence of the occupants of the car had been taken into account. So it's not about throwing a rubbish bin at a Roller - it's about throwing a rubbish bin at a convoy containing the heir to the throne. In swinging off the Cenotaph, he broke the unspoken rules of the King-and-Country brigade. 'You showed disrespect to those who made the ultimate sacrifice defending this country," said Judge Price, who last week sent 20-year-old Frank Fernie to jail for a year for throwing sticks at the TUC demonstration in March.

Also, I think no one above has commented on who the perp is: he is the adopted son of Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour, who got onto the Sunday Times Rich List singing "We don't need no education". BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...and that the eminence of the occupants of the car had been taken into account". So if that is true he did get a harsh sentence because it was Mr and Mrs Windsor. Have there been any studies about establishment people being treated favourably and more respectfully by justice and the government? That is certainly my experience from living in poor areas in the UK, where the police and local council seem uncaring about things they would have taken action on when I lived in a middle-class area. 92.29.124.89 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Penny might have got one fact wrong: according to this intelligent article in The Independent, Gilmour "was sentenced for throwing a bin at a car carrying royal protection officers and for kicking the window of a nearby Top Shop store." (Emphasis mine.) The article also quotes the judge as saying, “I have to take into account that you have had many advantages which are denied to most young men who come before this court.” To cap it off, "the judge decided Gilmour's use of drugs were an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one and said the nature of the charges demanded “lengthy custody”". BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Royal protection officers or their car identifiable as police officers, or were they in an unmarked car in civilian clothing? 92.24.191.2 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toirdhealbhach Luineach Mac Neill Chonnalaigh O Neill

I have been looking through the relevant articles and cannot seem to work out where this one man came from. He is called a cousin of Hugh O'Neill, which would make him a grandson of Conn O'Neill, unless in this case cousin is used to refer to any more distant relative as well. However, this would make him quite a bit older than cousin Hugh, whose father is stated to be rather older than his own brother Shane O'Neill. Whilst the ages can sort of work, I am left wondering whether this is because either, the two men are not cousins, but instead uncle and nephew or second cousins or some such, or whether Hugh's father was quite old on having his son, or any other possibility. Oh yes, and two different articles give his date of abdication as 1593 and 1595, any ideas which is right?

79.66.110.165 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found Turlough Luineach O'Neill; would you please link to or cite the other article to which you refer? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles I looked through would be the other members of his family mentioned above, which I have linked to. The other reference for his date of abdication was taken from that of Hugh O'Neill. 79.66.104.143 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morality of religion

Is teaching children from a young age that religion is fact a type of brainwashing and indoctrination? As a young boy i used to attend sunday school. While there we were told all of these fantastic things about biblical figures and events such as the parting of the red sea and jesus walking on water. And as children everybody in the class was really excited and saying "wow did that really happen". And not once did our teacher say no its never been proven to have happened. Surely this is brainwashing of the worst kind and children should be left to make up their own mind? Just wondered if I'd gotten the wrong end of the stick or if others agree with me. But if you tell a child something for long enough then it sticks in their head. --Thanks, Hadseys 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is teaching children what you do not believe yourself "brainwashing", but teaching children what you do believe to be not brainwashing. You seem to be treating the situation as if your own personal moral standards are somehow "the right ones", and if people teach their own children some moral standard different from your own, it must be "brainwashing". That seems rather self-centered and prejudicial, no? --Jayron32 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you brought that up, as teaching children about things to do with their own culture (including religion) is part of their training in understanding that there's more to their world than just themselves. All education is "indoctrination" to some extent. If the OP doesn't want to get into a specific religion, maybe he could instead teach his kids about the cultural importance of religions: a common bond among people, with shared moral values, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telling children things are fact when actually they are belief is what the OP seem to be complaining about. Teaching science, if done properly, involves explaining the evidence and uncertainty. That's the big difference between education and indoctrination. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To indoctrinate is "to teach with a biased, one-sided or uncritical ideology". To the extent that biblical and other legendary stories diverge from scientific fact or can't even be confirmed by historical sources, but are taught regardless, because they are believed to be the truth, they're indoctrination. Yet the word "indoctrinate" is usually only used of communists and their ilk, those who are on the "wrong side" of the ideological fence. The North Koreans' position that there is no God is no more or less scientifically provable than the West's position that there is one, yet one is indoctrination and the other is teaching our children decent Christian values. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communism's gods in general are Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al. North Korea's current god is Kim Jong-il. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, religion does get many exceptions from standards in general, it's just the way it is. It's a cultural thing. I've always mused, for instance, that teaching children that there's a boogieman under their bed that will kill them if they don't eat their peas would likely be mental abuse, even if it doesn't rise to the level that you could be arrested for it. On the other hand teaching children that if they disrespect their parents they'll be sent to a giant lake of fire to burn for all eternity that's considered not abuse, but a virtue. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even forgetting that fire and brimstone stuff, what about Santa Claus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be mindful of the mixed message. Parents are more than capable of enrolling children in religious education and simultaneously communicating to them verbally or nonverbally, explicitly or implicitly, that the religious learning they will receive there is not the whole truth. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might be interested in this clip. Belief in the immorality of religion - or, at least, the immorality of indoctrinating children in the unverified and unverifiable truth of religious beliefs - is commonplace among secular humanists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secular humanism and atheism are also quasi-religious systems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. But, is this really the place for this debate? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you brought it up. And your denial of the similarity is a good example of what I'm talking about. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse kinds of brainwashing. Taken as memes, religious superstitions are parasitic on human beings, but religious hygiene doctrine is in symbiosis. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? I don't understand the whole sentence. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the memetics article? Memes are ideas viewed as life forms. False superstitions are preying on human beings to various extents, but religious doctrines about not eating pork, for example, helped the Middle East avoid trichinosis. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need religious doctrines for that. Just cook the pork properly. Quest09 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't know anything about microbes. They observed people getting sick from eating scavengers (including hogs and shellfish) and concluded that those animals were "unclean". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could say that explanations of phenomena can be incorrect but beneficial even if they are incorrect. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like to call it, "Being right for the wrong reason." The right reasons, as well as how to prevent those problems, is now known. The main reason for keeping kosher, eating fish on Friday, etc., nowadays is simply "to remind yourself" that you're Jewish, Catholic, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the OP's question is "Yes", with the key word in the question being "fact". HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response is... if you don't want your kids to be taught that Jesus performed miracles and Noah gathered animals in a boat... don't send them to Sunday School. It's not mandatory you know. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More troubling than the religion question, as such, is the notion that kids should decide for themselves whether they are going to be moral, ethical, etc. Those concepts do not necessarily arise naturally in kids - they have to be taught. Whether they're taught in a conventionally religious way or a "secular humanistic" way, their still needs to be a foundation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"More troubling than the religion question, as such, is the notion that kids should decide for themselves whether they are going to be moral, ethical, etc. Those concepts do not necessarily arise naturally in kids - they have to be taught". Really? Do you have any evidence to back up that somewhat dubious statement? It may take a great deal of effort to teach kids that X or Y is moral or ethical, but that may well be because in many cases, it isn't. On the other hand, kids seem entirely capable of understanding ethics from a surprisingly early age. Taking candy from a baby might be easy, but try to do it to a three-year-old without getting a lecture in morality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Waaah, Ma, that man took my candy" doesn't exactly constitute a "lecture in morality". Unless the three-year-olds in your neck of the woods have advanced skills in polemics out of all proportion with their tender years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you lack practical experience in the 'taking candy from babies' field ;-) Seriously though, I'd suggest that kids are born with at least the potential to develop morality/ethics on their own - otherwise, unless one is a Biblical fundamentalist, and one who thinks that 'morality' is an arbitrary set of rules at that, one has to ask why such concepts are so universal. Yes, what is seen as moral and/or ethical is very much culture-bound, but there does seem to be a common core of sorts - though exactly what this 'common core' is, is perhaps impossible to define exactly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, I suspect you have somewhat limited experience in terms of children, child psychology and pedagogy. A 3 year old will indeed be very clear that it is 'unfair' when you take their sweets (unless they have been strongly taught otherwise), but they will be much less likely to consider it unfair if you steal sweets from another 3 year old and give the sweets to them. This isn't really morality. Children are cultural sponges, and will indoctrinate themselves with the prevailing culture to some extent. Most are naturally selfish to some degree, as is only to be expected, and they learn about morality and fairness from every interaction they have. Every child is indoctrinated: that's what culture is. A child who is not indoctrinated with principles of fairness and sharing and morality before they attend school will have a miserable time at school until they learn the basics from the other children. Children are not naturally moral, but they do naturally punish those who are unfair to them or those they like.

You are going to indoctrinate your children no matter what you do. You can either plan for this, and deliberately teach them the things you believe, or you can ignore it and leave them to absorb all the values you project, even the subconscious ones you'd rather not think about but which still inform your choices. There isn't a 'no indoctrination' option short of completely neglecting them (which simply indoctrinates them with a whole lot of unsavoury values about their value and how one should treat the small and helpless). 86.164.165.0 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that religious instruction of children can take the form of indoctrination and brainwashing. Then again, there are many many other ways children are indoctrinated and brainwashed, in non-religious ways. Further, the degree of indoctrination and dogmatic insistence differs from sect to sect, even church to church. To take an extreme example (one I'm in favor of), Unitarianism church are *churches* and tend to have "religious instruction of children", but all the examples I've seen could hardly be called indoctrination or brainwashing. Also, there is an age for which fantastic fairy tale like stories, like about Santa Claus or even the Tooth Fairy, seem to me fitting for the mindset of young kids, so long as such fairy tales are not taken too far or for too long. Just as there is a risk in instructing children too firmly about religion, fairy tales, etc, there is can be a risk in instructing children to clearly distinguish "true" stories from "pretend" ones. Better, I think, to foster critical thinking, and let the truth or falsity of a particular tale up in the air, pending further evidence and thought. That, it seems to me, is more moral than either insisting on *truths* religious or otherwise. Pfly (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This from the culture that spends billions on tricking children into believing that there is a fat guy in a red suit with a white beard that sneaks down chimneys to leave gifts which he manufactured at a secret North Pole base? Googlemeister (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better than spending billions on tricking adults into believing that a fat guy in a military uniform is hiding weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert, or that a skinny guy in pajamas poses a serious security threat to their country. Pais (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense is inappropriate when referring to those two individuals. Googlemeister (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just piling on here: Children's social attitudes are formed mostly by their parents in most cases, and religion is only part of that. Most Americans believe, for example, that bringing in a second wife (at least without the consent of the first) is wrong, that it's inappropriate for cousins to marry, that it's wrong to kill someone in revenge, etc. These values are shared by the religious and the non-religious alike in America, but they are not held among some groups in the world. Children pick these things up from their environment. Children are always "indoctrinated" in this sense. And if you think that the parents of someone like Ellen Johnson didn't pass on their (ir)religious values to her, well, that would be silly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Capital punishment in the United States, some 64% of Americans apparently do not believe it's wrong to kill someone in revenge. And William J. Murray seems to be a good counterexample to Ellen Johnson. Pais (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pais, you really like to paint with a broad brush don't you? There is more to the death penalty then simple revenge and trying to paint 160 million+ people as willing to kill people simplly for revenge is at best naive considering the 12 people who vote on that person's guilt were not themselves harmed and have no reason to desire revenge. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 people who vote on that person's guilt consider themselves as representing society at large and (in their minds) are taking revenge on society's behalf. Of course those 12 people are not, in fact, representative of American society as a whole, because anyone who belongs to the 36% opposed to the death penalty is not allowed to sit on the jury in capital punishment cases. (Way to stack the deck.) The jury is also carefully informed that if the law calls for the death penalty, they have to impose it, whether they like it or not (which considering jury nullification is a lie, but no one is permitted to tell them about the option of jury nullification). And no, there is nothing to the death penalty beyond revenge, except perhaps advancing politicians' careers. It doesn't serve as a deterrent, it doesn't achieve justice, it doesn't help survivors come to terms with the death of the victim, it doesn't do anything at all except satisfy peoples' basest, most barbaric "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" desire to kill someone they think deserves it. Pais (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does a very good job of ensuring that individual will never murder again, and unless you yourself are a survivor, how would you know it doesn't help wil coming to terms with the death of the victim? Additionally, what you call "stacking the deck" is actually the opposite. People on the jury do not have to claim to support it, just that they will keep an open mind about it rather then have 1 individual derail the entire thing based on their beliefs rather then facts in evidence. Googlemeister (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does no better a job of ensuring that individual will never murder again than life imprisonment without parole does. (Neither option actually guarantees the individual will never murder again, since he could still murder someone - a guard, another prisoner - while in prison.) And most murderers aren't serial killers and so probably wouldn't murder again anyway. The way I know it doesn't help survivors come to terms with their grief is the large number of interviews with survivors I've seen where they say things along the lines of "I thought I would feel better after his execution, but I don't." And the jury decides guilt or innocence (or insufficiency of evidence to convict) based on the facts in evidence; sentencing is decided after that, and is decided on by a jury composed entirely of people who have said "I would have no problem sentencing someone to death if that's what the law calls for", in other words death-penalty supporters. Anyway, I know I'm in the minority; the death penalty isn't the only form of legal violence I consider morally repugnant. I feel the same way about fighting in sports (martial "arts", one of the most abominable euphemisms I've ever heard), in war, and in self defense. And, to get back to the original topic of this thread, only the opposition to the death penalty is something I inherited from my parents' worldview; the rest of it is based on my own understanding of the Sermon on the Mount (which is closer to that of the Mennonites than to that of the mainline Protestant church I grew up in and still attend). Pais (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psych wards

I'm sure they are not like in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest , and that the tendency is to put a non-dangerous (to himself or to others) patient into outpatient wards, but what is true about psych wards of films? Do they mix patients with unrelated mental illnesses? Do they hang out together in a common room all day long? Are they not allowed to go out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "outpatient wards." If you are into outpatient care, you are not in a ward. The article Psychiatric_hospital#Types gives you an outlook, depending on the patient. Quest09 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistive care facilities, often called halfway houses, ideally tailor each patient's treatment regime to their individual needs. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OR here) Having been a patient in a psychiatric hospital recently, I can assure you that the scenes depicted in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest are not accurate (although I can't speak for conditions at the time the film was made). Anyway, the facility I was in had several units based not on the type of mental illness per se, but on the amount of care needed. I was in the unit that gave patients the most independence. In that unit, we had patients with numerous different conditions. The treatment consisted of us having individual sessions with psychiatrists, social workers and others, as well as group therapy sessions, art and occupational therapy, and other interaction. Both individual and group treatments are recognized these days as essential parts of mental health treatment. In addition, there was a significant amount of unstructured time in which the patients were encouraged to interact with each other on their own. Even in the most loosely-controlled ward that I was in, we were not allowed out, and our time was strictly managed. From what I understand, the other units had more restrictions on patients' free time, and more structured settings, but I'm not 100% sure how they worked. — Michael J 23:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it more like It's_Kind_of_a_Funny_Story_(film)? What you describes matches some points in this film. It depicts a more humane psych ward, but also mixing patients. Maybe this film and the Cucckoos' one reflect the common practice at their time (2010 and 1975 respectively). (BTW, Michael, if you didn't watch It's_Kind_of_a_Funny_Story_(film), but are suffering from depression, you might want to do it.) 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that film, but from the article it sounds like the same type of facility I was in. (I will have to find someplace nearby that has it for rental. Thank you for the suggestion.) — Michael J 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A psyche ward I'm familiar with has everyone from alcoholics to people so messed up they can't even dress themselves in it. They were all in the same milieu, although of course the treatment they received differed based on their condition. The privileges vary depending on what illness someone has and how much the staff can trust him not to hurt himself or others. Some patients can leave the grounds for several hours with a pass; some are allowed to wander the hospital grounds but that's it; some are restricted to the ward (which has an outdoor courtyard) and the most at-risk can't leave their rooms. This was a general hospital ward, not a dedicated psychiatric facility. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]