Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

Are they any books or movies with a villain with Aspergers_syndrome in it?

Are they any books or movies with a villain with Aspergers_syndrome in it? Interestly enough, people with aspergers sometimes commit crimes in real life. is there non-fiction books and movies about these types of people are criminals? Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Aspergers syndrome "becoming standardized as a diagnosis in the early 1990s". I think by that time, authors would have been wary about using a condition in a way that could appear to be adversely stereotyping those affected by it. There may be some examples out there, but I think it's unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV crime shows like Law & Order, Criminal Minds, etc often feature mentally ill villains. I don't have specific episode references, but maybe a superfan could find you some. Staecker (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Autism spectrum disorders in the media and List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum. How is it interesting that people with Asperger syndrome sometimes commit crimes - is there a group of people who never commit crimes? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People in a Persistent vegetative state? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Social Network" film...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a villain, but see Did Sherlock Holmes Have Asperger Syndrome?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Probability" episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 2) had a calculating and murderous (though perhaps pitiable) villain with Aspergers, although he did not know he had it until the detective recognized that he did. Edison (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So technically are Mormons polytheist?

Well I read in an article that the LDS Church once believed (not sure if they still do) that "we can become Gods like our Heavenly Father." Wouldn't that technically be polytheism? And wouldn't that technically be a violation of the First Commandment? 112.208.50.143 (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than the Roman Catholic Church, with its saints and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can tell the difference between veneration of saints and saying that men can become gods. Staecker (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Baseball Bugs' answer is wrong (the Catholic church distinguishes between "dulia" and "latria" -- see Veneration#Roman_Catholic.2C_Orthodox -- and saints are prayed to as intercessors with God, not as gods themselves). Some (such as many Muslims) would claim that the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity is effectively equivalent to polytheism, but certain Mormon doctrines are far more explicitly polytheistic than anything in traditional Christianity). AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what terms you use, it's the same thing. God doesn't need "intercessors". God is omniscient and omnipotent. Praying to saints is de facto polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way Catholics see it, as I understand it, it isn't really any different from asking a friend to pray for you, which Protestants do all the time. The only difference is that, in the case of the saints, you're asking a dead friend, and one you think might have just a little more influence. This brings in other theological arguments (are the dead conscious, prior to Judgment Day? Does God really answer prayers on the basis of influence?) but it doesn't seem to be polytheism. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that Catholics don't like having that brought to their attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be responsive in any way. --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning you didn't address the point I made. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't about baseball or cartoons or Tom Lehrer. Don't worry about it, some people can't resist attempting to answer every single question. It has never been any use bringing this up anywhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like having what brought to their attention? That asking something is not worship? Seems a little odd. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That they are engaging in polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose in the same way that you don't like having it brought to your attention that you beat your wife. If you are unfamiliar with the reference, please do follow the link before responding. Do you think that the people asking for references here on the desks are worshipping us? Do you think that Sola Scriptura Protestants worship the Bible, or otherwise engage in polytheism in which the Bible is an additional god? Do you think that children engage in polytheism when they ask for things from their parents? Do Muslims worship the geometric shapes which decorate mosques? 86.169.212.200 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfamiliar with the reference"??? That's a good one. Next you'll be asking me if I've heard the one about the chicken crossing the road. OK, the Bible and the Quran, in their respective religions, are presumed to be the voice of God, either directly or indirectly or both. So if you're "worshiping" those items, or more accurately, considering them sacred, it's part of worshiping God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't want to take any chances, given that you don't always get jokes and references on the desks that I expect you to get. You don't seem to have engaged with the questions I actually asked, except to say that worshipping an object is apparently fine and dandy, and not polytheism, if that object is considered to contain sacred writings. In interesting opinion that doesn't accord with the stated beliefs of any Christian group I am familiar with, but not really the point.

Group A is accused of worshipping other people and holding them as other gods. Group A explains that they do not worship these people or consider them gods (which would be blasphemy if they actually did worship them and consider them gods). Group A are accused of misrepresenting what they actually believe and do, since the accusers consider it more likely that Group A both worships extra gods and is willing to endanger their souls by blaspheming against these extra gods in order to, I don't know, trick people into thinking they believe something they don't? Rather than that the accusers have bought into the basic misinformation that is prevalent in certain parts of America, as part of a well-documented bias.

The first time you are asked whether you stopped beating your wife, you are puzzled and assume the speaker confused you with someone else. The second time, you wonder who's been spreading weird rumours about you. Subsequent times, you maybe point out that you never married, or that there is no evidence or witness statements or whatever. Eventually, when educated people with access to worlds of information ask the same question, you simply sigh, explain that it is a loaded question based on false ideas, and make a mental note about the person. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the LDS believe in the existence of many gods, however, they don't worship most of them, therefore, one migh call it Henotheism. There is some confusion however on whom the LDS worship. Some say it is only God the Father (link), but it is also said that they worship both the Father and Jesus Christ (link). If so, that can be considered bitheism, because Jesus and the Father are seperate beings and seperate gods in Mormon theology. - Lindert (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they call it "The Church of Jesus Christ..." if they don't worship Jesus? 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean anything. There are Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox churches named after saints, but that doesn't mean they worship them. There's no meaningful way to extrapolate a belief from something as trivial as a name. If you want to know what the beliefs of a faith are, you look to the people and to the leaders and to the scriptures and documents and tenets of that faith. You don't project your own expectations of what their faith should or shouldn't be based on your own criteria. --Jayron32 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the Mormons believe that their church is the continuation of the church that was founded by Jesus Christ, hence "The Church of Jesus Christ..." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shonuff, but that conclusion isn't reached because of the name. --Jayron32 22:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiar with the expression "shonuff", I googled it and was presented with images of the Shogun of Harlem. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough... --Jayron32 01:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same article that the Original Poster cited also states that the Mormons corrected their theology a couple decades ago to clarify that the whole becoming God thing is a metaphor, and that they only believe in one God. One of the major tenets of Mormonism (and a lot of other Protestant groups, to be fair) is that Scripture is subject to reinterpretation. So while you could claim that the Mormons used to follow a sort of polytheistic blend, they have made it quite clear that currently Mormonism is purely monotheistic. --M @r ē ino 21:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Mormon here. As much as I love Wikipedia, I probably wouldn't rely on it to expound official church doctrine. Of any church. The cited article ALSO states: "However, official LDS publications have still affirmed the doctrine of eternal progression, and the official church manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, published in 2012,[16] affirms the LDS doctrine that "As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may be."

I believe in Romans 8:17 which says that we will be joint-heirs of God with Christ. Admittedly, this can be interpreted in a number of different ways, but I believe we're on pretty firm ground with our principle of eternal progression. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman with curls, 2nd half of 19th century

Any idea, clue, hint, where this gentleman can be culturally positioned? ("tinyeye" gives 6 Hits but none with Name or further info). GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could do is track the photo backwards to (I think) its first appearance on the web, in January 2010: http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2010/01/100-wtf-photos-from-past.html It's picture #82. I have no idea if that site is run by people who keep track of the sources for their photos, but it appears to me they'd be the best place to start. I certainly have no clue where that particular kind of fashion sense would have been current -- the photograph's appearance suggests late 19th Century to me, and the style of dress feels Western European, but he could be Australian or Austrian and I wouldn't know how to tell the difference from what we can see. Good luck with the search: Jwrosenzweig (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that this is an individual who is non-conformist in some way, but who has put on 'normal clothes' for this picture to be taken. Non-conformist could mean that he's an artist or belongs to some other sub-culture, or that he comes from an ethnic group where men kept their hair long. There are many pictures from the 19th century of the original inhabitants of colonised lands donning Western garb, and looking thoroughly uncomfortable. V85 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the curls are not his real hair but "falls" or fake hairpieces, which were popular in mid-Victorian times. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Demon or Spirit Example

I need any example of a demon or spirit or entity of that causes men to fight each other or similar to that. Reticuli88 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean more specific than just "The Debbil made me do it?" --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes please. I'm looking for a entity that "specialized" in this? I don't know better terminology. Reticuli88 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err I'm not sure whether a Dybbuk specifically caused people to fight, and whether it was believed in or was just folklore, but maybe you can check it out? Sorry don't know much else. --Activism1234 23:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few demons from the Lemegeton- the Tree of Knowledge of King Solomon

Furfur - Bestows love of battle
Glasya-Labolas - Causes murders and death
Halphas - Causes wars
Sabnock - Inflames arguments and turns minor disputes into full scale wars --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eris (mythology), aka Strife, or her son Enyalius, also called Strife? (Now there's a way to generate mother-son friction.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mom, you named me after yourself?! Everyone's gonna laugh at me, especially that bully Hercules. Why didn't cha just name me Sue while you were at it? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yes indeed, and of course Loki specialised in stirring up strife in more northerly climes.

Also

From the classification of Sebastian Michaelis, Berith, Prince of Cherubim, is the demon tasked with promoting quarrelling, homicide and contention.
From the classification of Francis Barrett, Abaddon is your go-to demon for wars and conflicts--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Among the Goetic demons, Marquis Leraje is the inciter of feuds wars and battles Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If sci-fi is acceptable, the original Star Trek episode Day of the Dove features an entity which drives people into perpetual warfare to feed off the hatred it generates. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was of the Thuggee sect, and of Kali their goddess. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demon rum comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]