Humanities desk
< September 25	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 27 >

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.

September 26

Georges Darboy

Is his death considered a martyrdom by the Catholic Church? If not not, why isn't it?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems to be Yes. I got this by googling "Georges Darboy martyr". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching too and lot of sources do call him a martyr. But is this reflected by an official recognition by the Catholic Church? Or is this not needed for martyrdom?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided was the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Click on the martyr link on that page and you get a discussion of martyrs, history, definition etc. There seems to be no official proclamation that anyone is a martyr, just a general acceptance within the church that someone fits the definition. I guess if some senor Vatican figure starts calling someone a martyr, the rest of the faithful would follow; but doubtless, those faithful who already knew of the person's life and, more particularly, their death, would already be so referring to them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying in schools

Bullying in schools is epidemic in the West. I started off wondering if there are some categories of children who are NOT targeted for bullying. Such as children of teachers at the school, or the children of known violent criminals. Have any reputable studies been done showing the socio-economic status of the parents of the bullies and the parents of the children bullied? I would be surprised if a school found it could not deal with a bully who was, for example, the child of a dustbin man, bullying someone who was a child of the school governor - and the teachers turning a blind eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiliamson (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School bullying may have something about this. I don't think it is anything special about the West but how well the schools deal with it. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socioeconomic Inequality in Exposure to Bullying During Adolescence: A Comparative, Cross-Sectional, Multilevel Study in 35 Countries. 142.150.38.133 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not "epidemic" just because it makes headlines when kids are bullied and/or when some of the bullied bring weapons to school and wreak vengeance. One important factor in not being bullied is not being what bullies are looking for: small and weak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note: I believe you mean that bullying is endemic, which is an accurate description if most children experience it to some extent. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If also depends on how "bullying" is defined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Shadowjams (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. Perhaps I should have said that bullying is epidemic in British schools. I rashly supposed that American schools had the same problem. The reference on socioeconomic status indicated that lower class children are targetted more often. But there wasn't much detail. This wasn't my question, but perhaps what I am looking for is a breakdown of the occupations of the parents of bullies and a breakdown of the occupations of the parents of the bullied. Definition of bullying? Well, I suppose you know what racism means. Pretend it is racism, but applied to anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of curse bullying is epidemic. I cannot think of a single class from kindergarten to ninth grade that didn't have bullying in it. In tenth grade a classmate who was a bully's sycophant died in a car crash, and when an assembly was held to announce his death and offer grief counseling there was much applause, to the consternation of the professional victim-mongers. See Heathers. μηδείς (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it depends on the definition. Kids pick on each other all the time, and always have. Real bullying, as I see it, is the threat of violence and/or making someone's life so miserable that they seriously contemplate murder and/or suicide. Adults are often oblivious to this stuff until it manifests itself overtly. As regards the kids applauding, some of those kids probably thought it was divine retribution, while others are probably the same type who cheered when the assassination of JFK was announced in schools across the nation, 50 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any well-constructed studies on premium costs under the Affordable Care Act?

A Facebook friend just posted a link to an article going on and on about how much premuims will be going up for people buying insurance out-of-pocket. I looked into the methodology of the study (by a libertarian think tank) and saw that they were only looking at individual coverage, even though they were not filtering their household income data based on the type of household. They then compared the estimated health care marketplace cost for individual coverage to the cheapest individual plans currently available in the states. I pointed out the flaws, and showed that working through my case (if I didn't have employer coverage, but had the same income) I would end up paying $35 more a month than the cheap plan listed in the study, but it would cover 4 people, pre-existing conditions, mental health, maternity, preventative care and have a reasonable deductible, unlike the other plan (which I have actually used in the past when unemployed).

Are there any studies out there that actually do a good job comparing predicted rates under the ACA to the rates people are actually paying today, rather than comparing it solely to buy bottom-of-the-barrel insurance that barely covers anything? Katie R (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I can tell you right off the bat that any study funded by a "Libertarian think tank" will be biased against the ACA. I wouldn't even consider any study funded by anyone with a political agenda, and certainly not funded by the industry itself. So who does that leave ? Maybe a university study ? They might be reluctant to pay for such a study, though, since the ACA will be in force soon enough, and no predictions will then be needed to identify the relative costs. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you <something> two contradictions?

There's a word beginning with c that is used to describe the process of making contradictions acceptable. E.g. "how do you c_____ the fact that you are vegetarian while your husband is a butcher?" --129.215.5.38 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a synonym for 'reconcile'? This really belongs on the Language desk. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word that comes instantly to my mind doesn't start with a c: it is reconcile. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. The word was reconcile. I don't have an explanation for why I felt it began with a c. --129.215.5.38 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct. Concile starts with a cee, and re- is just a prefix. Trust yourself. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were thinking of cognative dissonance, where a person feels discomfort from holding two conflicting view points? uhhlive (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was. That's another good way to convey what I wanted to. Thanks. 129.215.5.255 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-native speaker (and, more often, writer), I find "concile" a completely plausible and useful verb, and was surprised to find that it's not in old-fashioned dictionaries. You can concile everything, while you really can only reconcile things that were together once and were separated somehow ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not "concile", it's "conciliate".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that be the case, then how did Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa) get its name when nothing was ever conciliated in the first place? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political hype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starts with c, means reconcile? How about come to terms with? Single words I don't have (I wouldn't use conciliate in this context). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

conciliate? concordance? conflate? co-mingle? coordinate? converge? consummate? Paul B (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aufheben ? Negation of the negation ? Resolution of the antagonism of the contradiction into a synthesis? See dialectics. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map about ages of consent in the world: Peru and Spain correct?

Hello,

I have a question relating this world map about ages of consent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg 1.Are the responible of this map sure with Peru? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Peru The above link and other sources state an actual age of 14 which corresponds with my researches. 2.Are the responible of this map sure with Spain? There is a draft to raise the minimum age of consent to 16 but as far as I know it is not the law in place. It is still being discussed. If I am wrong could you please give me the source? Thanks alot for your efforts.

Kind regards

Alex A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.105.125 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, great catch. Looking at the page for the file, it says the author used the Wikipedia age of consent articles as a source, and made the map on Aug 8 2012. The relevant Wikipedia files for that date, (Europe and South America) did say 18 for Peru (but the statement was unsourced), and 13 for Spain, which doesn't match the image (source given was this). However, the author of the image, User:MissMJ, says they are happy to take requests for image improvements, so I recommend you just go ahead and post your findings and sources on MissMJ's talk page to get it fixed. You can also add your sources to the articles. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how can guys see toilet seats?

I am to understand that women often complain of the toilet seat being left up - but that means that the guy must have lifted it before use, right? So, why would the guy see that he needs to lift it (without complaint) but the woman does not make the same determination? In effect I am asking logically about the difference here... I've never heard of a guy complaining about 'always having to lift the toilet seat.' Why not? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common criticism of the great Toilet Seat Canard. It never seems to occur to its proponents that this means that the man has to put in the Herculean effort of lifting the seat and then putting it down again, all so that woman have to make no effort of any kind. Clearly true believers in sexual equality would leave the seat up in order to equalise the work between the genders. Obviously if one wishes to retain the old Chivalric code of masculinity, opening doors for ladies to pass, offering them seats, etc, then one is implicitly accepting that they are the "weaker sex". True feminists should always expect to have to put their seats down themselves. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys sometimes need to have the seat down, too. The default position is down, because that's the only one that applies to all users. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are one of the few men, Jack, who don't poo standing up? μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(insert correct answer here)_________________ Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a world-wide perspective it probably is the minority of men -- Q Chris (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation I was given (by... a woman!) is that the issue is really about falling into the bowl. Late at night or in other times of darkness/sleepiness it would be nice to be able to simply sit down without fear of plunking ass first into a water filled basin. At our house, the issue is moot because we always close the lid prior to flushing to reduce the aerosolization of toilet water. While that effect is probably a bit overblown, it's had the effect of democratizing the situation - everyone always has to lift the lid before they start, so there's no guesswork and no favourtism. My hope is that this system be widely adopted in the hopes of healing one of the great rifts that exist between the sexes, thereby leading to a better world for all. And less wet bums. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer wet bums. And since I care more about the less/fewer distinction than about bog seats, the top feminist prize is mine. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the bums are all less wet. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've illustrated the reason for my question: presumably, late at night guys would piss all over the toilet seat with equal regularity to ladies' plunking down in wet basins: (both have the exact same mechanism of simply not looking) ; does this in fact happen? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your female partner will then complain about having to sit on your urine, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a man is content to piss into the darkness whilst indoors, I suspect there will be more things about which his companion might complain. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a man can pee in the bowl without hitting the rim he can pee in the bowl without hitting the seat. More people die nightly from crashing butt-first into the bowl than ever die sliding off a wet seat. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking that last sentence is false in two ways. At a literal level you're comparing nightly with ever, but on an even more literal level both are 0. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On topic, and a great example of WP:WHAAOE, Toilet-related injuries and deaths. My goodness. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the real reason guys like to piss with the ~~lid~~ seat up is that they assume they can get away with not wiping the rim when they do hit it, whereas they know they will have to wipe the seat. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that little boys have most to fear from the toilet seat in upward position. Toilet-related injuries and deaths. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm male, but leave the seat down all the time. The reason is I've had too many seats fall down as I was peeing, getting urine all over the place. I can usually avoid peeing on the seat, but if I do, I clean it up right away, and that's a far easier clean-up job than if it's all over the room. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hotel I stayed at recently had a button to flush the toilet. The button was situated on the front and both the seat and the lead had to be put down before you could flush. By the way Medeis, I think you will find that women also like to pee with the lid up. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a challenge: when a man pees standing up with the seat up is Easy mode, with the seat down (through the central hole) is Medium mode, and with the lid down as will is Impossible mode. You can still do it though, sideways. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an economic/efficiency analysis of the question: [2] and [3]. Enjoy:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the popularity of the meme I've never actually encountered a woman who complains about men leaving the seat up. I was tangentially acquainted with a woman who demanded her boyfriend sit down to pee or she wouldn't sleep with him, which is a whole 'nother level of expected control (the relationship did not last long). Meanwhile, I (a man) have got into the habit of leaving not only the seat but the lid down. I had a damp problem in the bathroom which necessitated the use of a dehumidifier, and if the toilet was left open it consumed gallons of water from the bowl but didn't dry out the damp. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]