Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 19

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

November 19

Medical "norms" and the thought of inhering natural rights advocates?

Given the weight inhering natural rights advocates put upon the person, how have they responded to the complication of the "norm" and "normal" in medicine that have been put by historians of medicine or, separately, by Foucault? In particular, how do they view health as the antonym of "disorder" given that historians of medicine perceive medical health to have come about in the 19th century as the inversion of disorderliness? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In English? --Trovatore (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fifelfoo only speak communism. You'll have to wait for an outside translator to English. --Jayron32 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Foucault? Sokal. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• And a response I share particular to that scholar. But separate to Foucault, you suggested above that "health" appears unconstructed. Sensible historians tracing the history of things such as DSM or ICD see "normal" and "healthy" as constructed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alan Sokal is a member of the Old Left anyone can respect. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I expect that the question relates to natural rights, as defined in our article on natural and legal rights. But unless somebody believes that there is a natural right to health -- which would be an unusual belief -- I can't see how a contradiction with a relativistic definition of health would arise. Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• The natural-rights part I got. I didn't get the bit about norm and normal and disorder. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect he's talking about a natural right to health care. I also think he means "inherent" when he says "inhering". It seems as though he is dedicated to posing his question in as convoluted terminology as he can possibly manage. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of anyone believing in a natural right to health care. Natural rights are almost always negative; they don't need to be provided, just not infringed. --Trovatore (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See this: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I've heard of it. But then I've heard of a lot of things that don't make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Such as the proponents of a so-called "right to life" who won't lift a finger to help the child that they would force the mother to carry to full term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The positive/negative distinction between rights isn't always clear and there may be more distinctions to make. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm talking about natural right's discourse, an ideology if you will that people possess natural rights that are inherent, that "inhere," in the person; would have a problem with the common historical approach to the discussion of how the idea of "normal" "health" in Western society came to be. I suggested this because Medeis used "health" above as an uncomplicated example of a thing that inheres or lives within the body; when elucidating a natural rights discourse. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Normal in the sense FF intends and healthy are two separate and unlike concepts. Normal as he means it is a subjective societal fashion. Circumcision is normal for you, bound feet and lip plates normal for me. Health is an objective standard based on observation of nature. We find all the time that out notions about health (high blood pressure is a sign of potency) have turned out to be wrong, because they are contradicted by the needs of a well-functioning body. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that everyone eventually dies, even the ones who were in the best possible health, listing health as a "natural right" seems a tad idealistic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this answer Medeis, it supplies what I sought to understand. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is more of an attempt to restate Fifelfoo's question than to answer it, but I believe the issue is - how do those thinkers who regard rights as being "natural" (nonsense on stilts), as being inherent in our nature rather than being imposed by society; for instance, to use Medeis' example above, who think that "a concept of guilt or innocence is prior to the concept of a justice system"; regard the idea of "health" as being a _correction_ of nature, of removing a "disease" from the body which has got there by natural means? There's also the point regarding the equivalence (or otherwise) of "healthy" with "normal" - is having a high blood pressure a "disease" in and of itself? If so, how do we determine what "high" means, other than by saying "high is what received medical opinion considers to be high"? If not, why does the medical profession treat people for high blood pressure? Tevildo (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you take "endowed by their creator" either literally (as God) or metaphorically (as Nature), then good health fails the test. What we are endowed with is mortality. Regardless of the level of health care provided, some folks are inherently going to have better health than others. That's just the way it goes. We as a nation have chosen to provide widespread health care. Having that choice is arguably where the natural right comes into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if "good health" isn't a natural right - (a) why is "liberty" a natural right? Because Jefferson said so? (b) Is the definition of "good health" nevertheless something intrinsic to humanity, or is it an arbitrary standard determined by the medical profession? If the latter, why isn't "justice" an arbitrary standard determined by the State? (I suspect "because it's a natural right" may be a tempting answer...) Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

More directly to the point, why is life a natural right? Given that by nature we all die? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, which is why the "right to life" really means the right not to be killed. It doesn't require anyone to provide you with the wherewithal for life. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

...and now we come to what may be some of Fifelfoo's point. You interpret the right to life as "the right not to be killed", but there are other "constructions" of this right. The German Basic Law currently is understood to indicate that indeed everyone has the right not only to the means of life, but even to sufficient means for "living with dignity", which includes health care and a degree of participation in public life. Just like different people have interpreted the same religious texts quite differently, so different societies have interpreted the same enlightenment ideas differently - including such seemingly simple things as "fundamental rights". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, this is so easy even a caveman can do it. A individual's right to X is a moral-political obligation on others not to take X from him without his consent. Even dogs and toddlers understand their own rights to concrete things, if they haven't yet mastered the art of not committing violence against others. A supposed right, to, say, healthcare, is not a right to keep the healthcare you've chosen to pay for. We see that in all it's naked glory. The supposed right to healthcare means the government pointing guns at some people to give money to other people at the directive of Kathleen Sebelius, subject to Obama's declaring insurers can continue offering now illegal plans to their customers for the near future without fear as of this moment they be sued for doing so. Which situation is by nature and which isn't is as obvious as a slap in the face. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This directly answers the question, which you can see in our article on the minarchist/libertariannon-aggression axiom and is not debating anyone's statement. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This does not begin to address the question. If we can derive the "right to property" from "nature", why can't we derive the definition of "good health" (not the "right to health") from nature? Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Medeis needs to strike his/her tea-party driven propaganda about Obamacare. If I'm not allowed to respond to such garbage, Medeis is not allowed to post it either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't hat it is because the response was somewhat related to the question. Granted, it's mostly a soapbox political comment only marginally related to the question, and if you want to put it under the hat, go ahead. The Reference Desk is not the place for pissing contests. You cannot express opinions unrelated to the question no matter what, regardless of what any other person does or does not do. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I did, and someone changed it. And my comments are every bit as relevant to the topic as those of Medeis. Medeis is using the topic as an excuse to spout tea-party pseudo-libertarian propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In case its unclear, this thread was created for the express expectation of my giving the classic liberal/minarchist/libertarian/anarcho-capitalist response: "I've asked a question aimed at elucidating the perspective you put below in a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03 pm, 18 November 2013, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)" I responded to that question less cryptically than "foucault sokal" in my above response and its adendum--"rights are those things no one is allowed to deprive you of against your consent." A bunch of responses were then posted asserting that was bunkum or asserting other definitions. I neither hatted nor unhatted those. (In fact, I believe the one who's complaining he's been hatted is the hatter--imagine that.) In any case, I gave the exact answer the OP was looking for. If he wants more he can have it. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your editorial against Obamacare had nothing to do with the OP's question, it was just an opportunity for you to make a political statement. If I can't make political statements, neither can you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Political debate irrelevant to the question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(a) "The bone is mine now, as I am a big dog and you are a small dog." Has the big dog stolen the bone? If not, how does this differ from taxation? If so, what is the source of the small dog's "right" to the bone after the appropriation? It's not physical possession, that has passed to the big dog. Can legal title, as distinct from possessory title, exist without a legal system? "Let your sister play with the dolly now." Has the parent stolen the doll from the child, especially considering that the parent paid for the doll originally? Does the parent have a right to decide which child can play with the doll? If so, how does this differ from taxation? (b) The question is not about the "right to healthcare", or even the "right to health". If the "right to property" can be obtained from nature, why can't "good health" (not "the right to health") be obtained from nature? Tevildo (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC) The guns are not being aimed at the citizens, they're being aimed at the slimy insurance companies that sell junk policies to those unsuspecting citizens. Unfortunately, Obama has put that issue off for a year, which plays right into the tea party's hands, as they can make it an election issue (which is why they wanted to defer it for a year in the first place). (The tea party is also actively involved in trying to discourage young people from buying health insurance, which is about as evil and immoral as anything I can think of.) As to "good health", that is not a "natural" right, unless you can figure out how to schlep God into a court of law when your health fails, as it always eventually will. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Also, the Obama care provisions were passed by the people (i.e. by their elected representatives) and the tea party's challenge to the law was upheld by the conservative-leaning court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Guns are being pointed. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, John Roberts notwithstanding. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC) The guns are being pointed by the tea party - a small minority who are trying to impose their will on the nation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Grow up, Bugs. What Tea Party member has seized anything at gunpoint? Compare that to the IRS. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) They've seized the Republican Party is what. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC) The whole "gunpoint" discussion is irrelevant. Approximately as long as there are humans, people have provided some level of mutual support. And approximately as long as we've had some basic kind of state, there have been taxes which have been collected under threat of some kind of sanctions. This in neither new nor surprising nor in any way outrageous. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) That's just brilliant. Taxes are necessary, so any level of punitive confiscation is good? Or do you have some more serious point? Neither you nor Bugs is making any serious point here. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Taxes only become "punitive consfiscation" when the taxes are being spent on things you don't like it to be spent on. The whole "all taxation is theft" thing is a boring, trite, and facile argument that belies the fact that some money must be collected by the government to do some necessary things. That you disagree with others about what is necessary or not is no reason to use inflammatory and pejorative language. It is one thing to disagree over the role of government and what it should and shouldn't spend money on; it's quite another to dodge that argument entirely by falsely claiming that the government has no right to collect any money from anyone (and by extension, to then provide no services, pass no laws, and cease to exist entirely). --Jayron32 03:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC) That's a straw man, though. People who want to sue in court for theft of fraud should be willing to pay a ten percent sales tax to cover the cost of protecting items from such crimes. Minarchists aren't expecting anything for free. Anarcho-capitalists have been mentioned above. The only time you see one of them in action is when a table of 12 church ladies are asked to put up money and tip for their brunch bill, and people start claiming back money out of the tip pile. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I object to my tax dollars going to so much military spending. And I object to tea party elements and the like getting tax-exempt status. But I do support "limited" military spending. And I also support government spending to help those who would otherwise have nothing thanks to the blood-suckers at the top of the "free market" food chain. Hence I choose to pay my taxes. Not because of your metaphorical second amendment being aimed at me, but because it's my civic duty as an American. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are Stephen Schwarzschild and Henry Schwarzschild brothers?

The wikipedia articles for both are incomplete for family records. It's known that Steven Schwarzschild had a brother named Henry . Both escaped from Germany in 1939. Both had education at the City College of New York , and it's known that Steven's brother, lived in White Plains, NY, which is the same location as Henry's death. I can't find any information other than that, but it's a mighty large coincidence if it's just that.

206.21.123.40 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Summer vacation of US Congress

In Germany, where I came from, the Bundestag has a summer vacation of approx. six weeks during July and August. Aren't Senators and Representatives on vacation in summer? As I look through the legislation, congress also passes laws during summer. Even decades ago, just remember the gulf of tonking resolution of august 1964. --84.160.174.68 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

They have a regular schedule, but the President can request an emergency session of Congress, when something urgent comes up. Also, they may delay a recess themselves, if they have important unfinished business (perhaps some scoundrel has managed to remain untaxed). StuRat (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of accomplishments, the current US Congress has been on vacation for nearly three years now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

But the Senate can't get in any golf on their vacation, seems all the courses are booked by some guy in a big White House. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's been true since the Eisenhower days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually more like Woodrow Wilson, but interesting to see you let the disappointment in the Senate slide. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Do Saudi Arabian nationals get money from the state out of the oil profit? 194.144.231.142 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"There is no personal income tax in Saudi Arabia." [2] Otherwise, the answer seems to be "no". Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is, no direct money transfer. However, many things are done with the oil revenue which benefit the citizens, such as building the nation's infrastructure (roads and such). StuRat (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Their auto gas prices are US$0.50 a gallon[3] whereas the U.S. gas prices are from $3 to $4 a gallon.[4] -- Jreferee (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, it's USD 7.92 per US gallon by my calculations (GBP 1.30 per litre if you're lucky). [5] Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This article [6] could give an idea of how the kingdom goes around when it wants to "buy" the people off. In addition to no taxes and huge infrastructure investments, some of the other ways include large unemployment benefits and large bonuses to all public employees (which is kind of a direct payout but does not cover all the citizens and is not regular).129.178.88.84 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy

I vaguely remember reading something philosophical about just by suddenly spotting somebody on an otherwise lonely walk, a relation is instantly formed in which you are somebody being seen by another being and how just another person's perspective has the force to change us. Does anybody recognize this line of thought? 194.144.231.142 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Sartre's regard (or "look") in Being and Nothingness? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds correct, although it's been a long time since I read Being an Nothingness. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Might also want to check out writing around male gaze which deals with being changed by (in general) being seen. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certain homosexual males with mirrors have been know to spontaneously combust due to that phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly going to be the case for the average mugging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

PD-USGov satellite images

Does anyone know of a website that provides {{PD-USGov}} satellite images of most or all of the USA? I recently visited and photographed the "Studebaker Clubhouse and Tree Sign" that's at National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Joseph County, Indiana, so I have a photo to upload, but at ground level it doesn't look anything like the unique aerial view, which is really the basis for its historic status. I'd love to get an aerial or satellite image for the St. Joseph County page, but I don't know where to look. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your easiest bet is to install one of the implementations of NASA World Wind, which accesses a range of PD-USGov imagery. Most comprehensive cover is Landsat 7, but the spacial resolution is low (much lower than the commercial providers you'd get on say Google Earth). WorldWind also finds old black and white aerial images and newer Urban Area Ortho, which is stripy aerial coverage of some US urban areas. Beyond that what World Wind finds, there is patchy Skylab, STS, and ISS imagery, but I don't know of a good library for finding any of that. I think it's unlikely that you'll find a PD-USGov of that area which is sufficiently detailed, unless you luck out and find it in the Urban Area Ortho data. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Boundary Between Judaism and Christianity

Is a group of righteous gentiles which follows Jewish law and tradition and which teaches that Jesus was a human rabbi of the school of Hillel, that Jesus was not God or part of the Godhead, and that he was not the Messiah be considered a Jewish sect and not a "Christian sect." Thanks. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't think anybody would call them Christian, but whether or not they would be "considered" Jewish depends entirely on who is doing the "considering". --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Christians" by definition believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. If they don't believe that then they wouldn't be a Christian sect. According to Who is a Jew and Conversion to Judaism, established Jewish traditions wouldn't consider them a Jewish sect either unless the individuals have each undergone an "official" conversion process. However, regardless of such "non-recognition" they may be described as a "Jewish sect" by outsiders and/or choose to self-identify as "Jewish" or even "Christian" for that matter.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me of a story I heard on the M72 Bus one Friday afternoon a few years back. A rather well-dressed man boarded the bus going across town and joined two other conservatively attired men already seated. He was rather upset looking, and said, "Brothers, thank you for joining me to talk about this matter. You know my son has just graduated Yeshiva. This summer we sent him on sabbatical to Israel. To my great distress, when he returned this week he told me he had come back a Christian. And I had always thought he would take over the congregation after me!" One of the other men already seated on the bus began to rock back and forth. "Oy, I have not spoken of it for years, but I too have a son, and I too sent him to Israel, and he too came back a Christian!"

The third gentleman, obviously a man of great wisdom and restraint, said, "Brothers, you are aware my son has been travelling for the last three years. What you are not aware of is that after I had sent him for the first time to Israel as well, he too became a Christian. Let us not despair. We are three of the most learned scholars in New York City. Let us pray together to the Lord for guidance." As they prayed, a howl of wind arose and a dark storm suddenly fell. After a brief, flooding downpour, there was a single booming flash of lightning. The bus was struck, and the roof torn open. The rain stopped; not a drop fell inside. A shaft of light fell on the three rabbis. From the sky, a voice spoke, "My children, I too had a Son, and I too sent Him to Israel...." μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wich in turn reminds me of something a friend once said: "I'm definitely a Christian, I'm just not sure about all the whole God and Jesus thing". An interesting discussion on how morality and religion are separable followed, once we'd finished laughing MChesterMC (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Further to what User:WilliamThweatt wrote above, see Noahidism and Seven Laws of Noah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)