How much of what was said in the Peace of Prague (1866) before User: 75.70.***.*** deleted the parts were true? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additions were really quite terrible, FFTW, a mixture of half-understood, half-digested, erroneous and irrelevant facts which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Treaty of 1866. I'll take the points in turn.

• Otto von Bismarck did not try 'to group several independent states together to form one nation.' The German Empire, a federation, incidentally, and not a unitary nation, was proclaimed at Versailles in January 1871, but its form had emerged from prior negotiations between the Prussian Minister-President and the other German states.

• I have simply no idea what is meant by 'Napoleon created a 1000 entities and put them into 39 states.' I assume this must be some muddled reference to the Confederation of the Rhine. The information in the rest of the paragraph is, well, garbage!

• I have no idea what the reference to the supposed 'economic depression' in 1848 is meant to convey and how this impacted on Austria's alleged attempt 'to unify a German nation states' (sic). It really makes no difference; for it's nonsense.

• As for the meaning of the following paragraph and assertions like 'army was struggling on reforming their groups', or 'establish Prussia as the most German power in the world', well, your guess is as good as mine!

• The German Empire was, as I have said, proclaimed in 1871. It did not have a 'constitution' dating to 1866. I have no idea what is meant by the 'small states were put under Prussian control, while larger states were controlled by federal government.' In any case it's wrong.

The whole thing is of a lamentable standard, hardly acceptable even from the dimmest of primary/grade school pupils. The essential thing, though, is that the various points touched on have no bearing whatsoever on the Treaty of Prague. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, do you know what did have to do with this treaty? Thanks ahead of time. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply the agreement that ended the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Beyond that it offered the Kleindeutsche Lösung-the Lesser German Solution-to the problem of unification, by ensuring the exclusion of Austria and the domination of Prussia. The alternative Grossdeutschland solution had always carried with it the problem of what was to be done with the Austrian Empire's extensive non-Germanic lands. For Bismarck the exclusion of Austria achieved two distinct but related objectives: that Prussia would be the leading power in Germany-by far the most important consideration-and that the new Empire would be united in culture, race and language. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to bring James Graham (soldier) up to GA, and since there's not a lot of personal biographical information, I'm trying to expand on his military service. He was serving in the Coldstream Guards at Waterloo, and returned to England with them in 1816, (doing exciting things like arresting Cato Street Conspirators) remaining with the regiment until 1821, when he joined the 12th Royal Lancers. Graham was with the lancers until his discharge in 1830. So, nine years of service, but no idea what he did. Basic searches for the regiment offer no information for the years between Waterloo and the 1840s. The previously excellent http://www.regiments.org (which provided all this sort of information) has been down for weeks. Anyone know of another good source? Or, even better, is anyone an expert on the 12th Royal Lancers? Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; check out The London Gazette. It has a very easily searchable and free web-site. It helps if you first search using your subject's name, from that find his army number, and then search using that (NB - try to include the army number in the footnotes or references of the article as a courtesy for anyone following in your footsteps). --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the wayback link for the 12th Royal Lancers page of regiments.org, which shows the only overseas deployment after the occupation of France as two squadrons to Portugal December 1826 to July 1828. Unfortunately, google has not yet got around to digitizing the 12th's volume in Historical Records of the British Army.—eric 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I am always impressed by the brilliant answers here. Major Bonkers: thanks for the London Gazette tip: what a brilliant resource. However, I've spent quite a while searching using a variety of search terms and could not find my man or even much about his regiment; plenty of gazetted officers, but nothing on NCOs or ranks, that I could see. (Am I missing something?)

Eric, thanks for hunting out that link. I can't seem to access it, for some reason, so thanks for the report back about troop deployments. I have also been searching for archives and found others mourning the loss of regiments.org, at the Great War Forum; the last couple of threads contain a link to an archived, 28 Mb downloadable version, if anyone else here is also missing the site (it offered a full chronology of every regiment, and lists of regiments for every battle). Gwinva (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to ask why certain information in the Republic of Armenia page has not been updated. For example, I understand that the Armenian Diaspora in the US is actually over a million, with almost 500,000 (if not more) in Southern California alone. Please see if you can find out the correct info on this. Thank you for your time.

141.158.53.215 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Mina[reply]

Perhaps you can use this data from the U.S. census to update the page: Selected Characteristics for Persons of Armenian Ancestry: 1990. WikiJedits (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a state-by-state breakdown of ancestries from the 2000 census: [1]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a title of a book be considered copyright if it was never published? In this specific case, there are four books in a series called Creepers. There were going to be six, but only four were published. The ONLY place the titles of the two missing books can be found are on the inside covers of the previous four. There is NO information about the two books anywhere online or in bookstores or anything. There is also no information or background behind the titles. ONLY the titles themselves. (And the titles do not have unique words or names.) My question is, are those titles copyright or can they be used? -WarthogDemon 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question to ask a lawyer, and I suspect even a lawyer might have difficulty. We can't give you legal advice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits gives[2] and one of them says, if it looks like a copyright issue, it probably is. Only a lawyer could tell you exactly. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can titles be copyrighted? The answer, according to a pretty straightforward page by the US Copyright Office, is no: "Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright." Now, if the name is trademarked, that would be a different question. For example, the title, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not copyrighted (I can write it wherever I want, nobody can stop me), but it is trademarked for a variety of purposes, including books (can look up trademarks here). Which makes sense: I shouldn't be able to bring out another book with the same name as one that is already on the market in a way that will confuse the consumer into thinking they are buying one book when they are really buying another. But unlikely copyrights, trademarks must be registered, so it would be a trivial thing (using that link I provided) to see if the title in question was trademarked for the specific purpose of books—if they were unpublished, though, it is almost certain that they were not, as it takes money and effort to preserve a trademark. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point shows up in this page: Leviathan (disambiguation) with all those book titles and more. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could be one for JackofOz, but any help gratefully received. I'm searching for the title of a very well known piece of classical music that I have often seen on advertisements and the like. It's a choral piece with soprano female voices and an orchestra. It's a relaxing piece, kind of mid-tempo. Somehow it reminds me of travel, and of being out in the open air. Maybe these associations stem from the kind of adverts it's been used to soundtrack. Any ideas? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one idea, the first song that popped into my head and now is stuck there, and I'm sure it ain't it. What country or countries do you hear these ads in? What language is she singing in? Do you know even one word she sings? How about the product advertised? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not choral exactly, but could this be the Flower Duet (of British Airways ad fame)? Algebraist 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one (looked it up on Youtube). Thanks very much, Algebraist. I hadn't associated it with BA, perhaps because my experiences of flying with that airline are hellish and unrelaxing, but I guess that's where I'm most familiar with it. Sorry if 'choral' was the wrong word. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it looks like many versions are choral, though it's originally not. Algebraist 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can't say I've ever heard a choral version of this piece (but then, "popular culture" is not very popular in my household). They'd have to rename it, temporarily, unless the choir was very, very, very small - consisting of only 2 singers. Despite this red herring, the Flower Duet was exactly what I was thinking of when I read your question, Richard, so well done for nicely evoking it. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is that venerable institution, the San Marino High School Girls Choir, performing the piece. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And quite lovely too. Thanks Richard. (I still can't quite get my head around a "duet" being performed by 25 people. For my sins I'm one of those people who do like their terminology to be precise and meaningful, but more and more I'm finding the world I inhabit and the world I live in are 2 separate places). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the Tibetan Resistance asked the CIA for nukes during the uprising of 1956?

This article makes the unsourced assertion that "One of the trainees [...] asked CIA operations officer Roger McCarthy for ‘a portable nuclear weapon of some kind ... that the trainees might employ to destroy Chinese by the hundreds.", but it's a ridiculous request, so I wouldn't make too much of it. The Russians didn't even give the Cubans any nukes in their famous contretemps; the weapons were kept in Russian custody the whole time. --Sean 12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question, War at the Top of the World, can be found in the February 2004 issue of Military History, published in Leesburg, Virginia. The statement itself is sourced to Tears of the Lotus by Roger E. McCarthy. Joe Bageant, the author of the piece, and a senor editor of Military History, also recommends The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, by J Morrison and K J Conboy, Orphans of the Cold War by J K Knaus, and The Life and Times of a Tibetan Freedom Fighter by K S Dewatsang. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know about the effort made by Chinese Government to run creche / day care centers for children faliing under ag group 6 months to 5 years?

++**

..........We all all know that nuclear power provides over 6%of the worlds energy.the reason i specifically chose Iran is because dating back to 1950s,the nuclear program of Iran was launched with the help of the USA,as part of the atoms for peace program.nuclear energy is also used to drive big ice breaker ships and also produce electricity right?Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty,and the third pillar of that treaty allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy!mr George w bush later made a statement reiterating that Iranian regime arms funds and advices Hezbollah!...THE SAME LAME ACCUSATIONS HE MADE BEFORE IRAQ'S INCURSION,prompting the death of our young men and women in military service.thats why i asked who monitors the USA,because sooner or later i am afraid poor nations will continue being victimized,when they are honestly trying to earn a living?41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)DAVIS

The question part of this seeems to have been answered at "Super Power" above. The rest appears to be either debating material or a sopabox topic. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does he mean exactly in saying "It is no good arguing with ethics."Steerforth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steerforth, darling, did someone give you an existential scatter-gun?! It certainly seems like it! Anyway, into the stream (of consciousness) she plunges!

The first thing you should remove from your mind is the suspicion that Kierkegaard meant that we have no alternative but to follow moral rules. While he admits that such rules are hard to bend, his real meaning is altogether more subversive: that there is something quite arbitrary about the accepted notions of good and bad. It's not, of course, easy to set aside normal ethical judgements; for, as Kierkegaard also says, 'the ethical is the universal.' If it is wrong to steal then this applies in all times and in all cases.

But while rules may be rules, the world is the world, and there are always gaps which serve to separate the general from the particular. In the most extreme cases we have what Kierkegaard calls the 'teleological suspension of the ethical'. A mother who steals to save her child from starvation is behaving contrary to an ethical code, but her actions serve an ultimate good. Here the ethical judgement is simply irrelevant. The gap can be closed by thought. But consider the greater case, that put forward in Fear and Trembling, where Abraham plans to murder Isaac in obedience to God. It would be murder, judged in conventional moral terms. It is redeemed, however, by the ultimate meaning of the action: pure resignation in absolute faith. In other words, it goes beyond ethics. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing?Steerforth (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Even an existentialist has to trust somebody. For example, one might say it is a leap of faith to enter the unknown world of existentialism. This isn't really "religious" faith, but it is faith in the sense of hoping that some good will come of the experience without knowing for certain. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite central to existential thought. It is an act by which the world is remade, transcending the limits of what is; transcending the limits endorsed by reason. Kierkegaard says that I have faith if "...I am able to make from the springboard the great leap whereby I pass into infinity." There is no process of accumulation involved here, no way by which one proceeds from the finite to the infinite. The leap is essential. For Nietzsche, speaking with the voice of Zarathustra, man is a 'rope over the abyss'. To change we need to learn to leap and dance on this rope. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do they perceive fear?Steerforth (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same as everyone else, I'd say. About the only difference is that existentialists would likely perceive fear as a natural response of the human brain. Whether that is used to try and separate the emotion from the situation, or simply embraced as a natural condition, would be debated by the individual.

It may be helpful for you to separate in your mind Existentialism as a philosophy from Existential despair. One can have existential despair without being an existentialist, and vice versa. -- Kesh (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will find discussion of the significance and nature of fear in Kierkegaard, but by far the most compelling account is to be found in the work of Heidegger. He represents fear by a feeling that 'it is coming close.' Fear takes many forms, but we can live with these because they are most often 'at a distance.' Real fear is when the potential threat, whatever form that takes, has broken through-"In fearing as such, what we have thus characterised as threatening is freed and allowed to matter to us." Fear is a source of both insight and illusion: it makes things matter. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship?Steerforth (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the war Heidegger was barred from teaching because of his past associations with the Nazis. During his rustication he wrote his Letter on Humanism, in which he turns to the pre-Socratic philosophers, to people like Parmenides and Heraclitus, with whom he identifies in particular, especially in the argument that all human existence is open to divine presence. In the Introduction to Metaphysics, first published in 1953, he picks up on Heraclitus' saying that war was the 'universal father', the creator of everything in human life and nature. From this Heidegger went on to reflect on the disunity which is inseparable from existence. Once allowed back into the university he lectured on Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus is also of significance to Sartre, particularly his most famous principle that one cannot step in the same river twice. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do the existentialists deal with irony?Steerforth (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By going beyond the strict verbal meaning of the term! It becomes, rather, an approach to life itself, a particular way of being. Under the influence of Kierkegaard, Richard Rorty, the American philosopher, puts forward the notion that the 'ironist' is able to live life from within, yet always aware that this is only one experience or perspective which undercuts all claim to absolute knowledge. The true ironist, so Rorty argues, must cease to claim the last word. This is the perfect description of Clio herself! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of the great Victor Meldrew 'I don't bellieve it!' This is so just so jaw droppingly COOL!!! Where the f*** does it all come from, girl? I think you must be a computer. Why not go on 'Who wants to be a millionaire?'. You would be up that ladder like a squirrel, without using any of the lifelines (I would also be able to see what you look like!).Steerforth (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha! In your dreams, sweetie! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any private insurance against poverty? (besides the obvious, like saving for tomorrow) 217.168.4.68 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. If you own a business, there are forms of insurance you can take to mitigate the financial loss if the business fails, but that's about it. Bankruptcy is a serious threat, and even savings won't necessarily save you from that. -- Kesh (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay healthy. Live in a country with a social safety net. Have rich relatives or enough children to care for you. Don't get into debt. All the obvious, though. I think Kesh is right. WikiJedits (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have never seen a general insurance against poverty, there are concrete ways of insure against causes of poverty like bad weather, volatility in the stock market, sickness, disability and accidents. SaltnVinegar (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deposit insurance Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a private insurance? SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and payment protection insurance. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A trust is also a form of securing against misfortunes like bankruptcy, drug addiction or gambling. Probably an insurance against poverty is not possible because it would be too risky, since large chunks of population could fall into poverty within a short time-frame. SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some places you can also take out insurance against unemployment. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the existential implications of Nietzsche's statement?Steerforth (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialism? 217.168.4.68 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was obvious, but read the story of the hermit in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. His life is based upon God's presence. Every action he performs is in praise of the deity. If God is dead then the hermit is dancing in a void, under the illusion that he has an audience. The saint, it might be said, has lost his witness, the only thing that hitherto gave life meaning. But it is far more significant than that; for when God died "...sinners died with him." They died as sinners because their acts no longer conferred any such identity.

Let me put this another way: with the death of God the world has lost its moral centre, the pole from which all meaning was derived. There are no more saints just as there are no more Sinners. There are only questions, always questions. For Karl Jaspers, taking up Nietzsche's baton, the death of God is a historical situation through which humanity must pass on towards new forms of meaning. Nobody can escape the death of God, atheist or believer. And therein lies the most delicious of ironies! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do they perceive loss?Steerforth (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadness is yet another central existential concept, sadness caused by loss or absence, either of things or of people. If Marxism is the philosophy of the experience of being denied, then Existentialism is the philosophy of losing hold. Paul Tillich is particularly relevant here, as indeed is Karl Jaspers. For both the awareness of loss is at the centre of the most terrible moments of the last century, loss of God and loss of Humanity. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That existentialism arises from meaninglessness and what did he mean?Steerforth (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tillich. For him existentialism arises from 'the experience of meaninglessness.' And with that, dearest Steerforth, you are done, as am I! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a German during WWII joined the Nazi party motivated by career interests - but not convinced of the ideology - is it fair to call him a Nazi? SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There were many tried at Nuremberg who said they didn't agree with Hitler but just went along with it for whatever reason. They were nevertheless labelled as such. PeterSymonds | talk 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were middle-class nominal members of the Nazi party and have done nothing actively (besides perhaps flying flags and that stuff)? SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, not a biggie in the party. I assume so; eg. if you joined (and I assume you mean signed up) to the Labour party in the UK and it collapsed, you were still a member. However I'm not entirely sure so I'll leave this for someone else. PeterSymonds | talk 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the most literal sense the person was certainly a Nazi, since this was just shorthand for "member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party". Time has changed and broadened the meaning, however, so that calling someone a Nazi - unless the case is unambiguous - now implies certain assumptions on the speaker's part about that person's attitudes and values (see Godwin's law). There's an interesting discussion about the use of "Nazi" and "Fascist" as insults here[3]. If you want your words to be strictly neutral and descriptive, then "Nazi party member" is unambiguous. As to whether it is "fair" to describe them as a Nazi, fairness is POV (or so my children frequently assure me). Karenjc 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) These days "Nazi" has come to take on a pejorative meaning that doesn't necessarily relate to the Nazi Party, WW2 Germany, or politics of any kind, e.g. Seinfeld's "food Nazi". Nominal members of the Nazi Party were not necessarily this type of "Nazi". Given the language change, it may be better to stick to the facts - the person concerned "joined the Nazi Party", was "a member of the Nazi Party", or perhaps even was "a nominal member of the Nazi Party". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SaltnVinegar, thousands of people joined the NSDAP, or its various professional offshoots and subsidiaries, either to keep their existing jobs or for reasons of simple opportunism, just as thousands did not, for ethical or other considerations. A 'Nazi' was simply a way of describing a member of the Party, and it is quite irrelevant if they shared the ideology or not. Degrees of ideological commitment were impossible to determine at the time, for obvious reasons, and afterwards, well, no one was a Nazi, were they? After the war the Allies established a Denazification programme, intended to weed out some of the worst offenders by, amongst other things, differentiating between implementers and mere 'followers.' It was to prove a Herculean task, unevenly implemented across the various occupation zones. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What options were explored in the evaluation of the western offensive of 1940? Were there any objections, for instance, to the sweep through the Low Countries? John Spencer (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, John. Strategic planning for the western offensive began soon after Britain and France rejected Hitler's peach overtures following the conquest of Poland. A number of scenarios were examined: Case Brown-a joint German and Italian offensive across the upper Rhine, though Italy was not yet in the war; Case Bear-a direct attack on the Maginot Line; and Cases Hawk, Green and Yellow for attacks on France and the Low Countries.

Wilhelm von Leeb was the only senior officer to advise against an attack through Belgium, saying to his fellow generals that Germany would never be forgiven for a second violation of that country's neutrality in twenty-five years. But in practice there was no way a successful offensive-Case Bear-could have been mounted through the narrow front of Alsace and Lorraine. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the poorest country in Africa? And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.88.222 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi, with a GDP of $600. [4] The reason is given on this page: [5]. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things may be bad in Malawi, but they're not that bad; it's $600 per capita, (otherwise I'd be their king). --Sean 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with such low GDPs probably have an economy mostly based on subsistance agriculture, in which people grow the food they eat and exchange the little left over for other stuff.HS7 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is John McCain the first husband of his second wife? 71.100.160.42 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

He's the only one listed in the infobox of her article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we judge/evaluate/valuate someone, if what we are is a matter of luck? Ignorant people/ugly people/aggressive people/poor people are like that just because they come from the 'wrong' environment or had the 'wrong' genes... SaltnVinegar (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update shortly with chapter and verse but the answer Jesus Christ gave is by their works. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

MAT 16:27  For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
JOH 7:24  Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 
REV 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works. 
REV 20:13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works.
MAT 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
MAT 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

71.100.160.42 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

A criminal may be a criminal because of his genes, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a criminal. Kironide (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the law makes something a crime which is the result of genes then perhaps the law should be revisited. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

A part of law is designed to protect society as a whole, and, in that interest, a concern for the individual is sometimes subservient. If someone is a murderer or a child molestor or a thief because that someone knows no better, grew up in an environment where such behaviours were accepted or even encouraged, or has a genetic bent, shall we say, that leaves that someone unable to resist the call to do such things, society needs to protect all its other someones from the actions of this someone. If there is a "cure", then it should be offered. There is seldom only one reason for any action, and the law can only really deal with the outcome, though sometimes the intended outcome or the motivation for the action is established in mitigation, and the punishment therefor diminished. And then, sometimes the law is recognized as being wrong, and it is changed. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our laws recognize that people have agency, that they make choices. It recognizes that not all people with a given genetic makeup turn out the same way, it recognizes that not all people from a given environment turn out the same way. Our laws say, in essence, that even though life is not fair, and some people will have a whole lot harder time being "good" than others, it is still a benefit to both society as a whole and the individuals in it to hold people responsible for their actions. Only in certain extreme situations does it regard the agency of crimes to be something beyond the person who committed them, e.g. with mental illness, which is treated (and the person in question is still removed from the general population). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone (Hitler for instance) wanted to execute Jews on the basis of genetics then all they would have to do would be to create a law which required execution of persons with a particular genetic trait associated with Jews. Hence, if the law makes something a crime which is the result of genes then perhaps the law should be revisited. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As I said above, sometimes the laws are revisited. Laws don't happen in a vacuum; they are, usually, a response to events that are seen by the society as inimical or dangerous to it. While we are moving towards a time when it may be possible to identify, with certainty, both anti-social inclinations and, to encompass the Captain's point, the inability to overcome those inclinations, we are not there yet. Criminal law is, for good reason, directed not to inclinations, but to behaviours. Reasoned societies do not normally support the kind of laws similar to your example. If there is an abolute ruler or dictator involved, then it is unlikely that revisiting the law by reasoned individuals will be permitted, never mind successful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly laws, which discriminate on the basis of genes, exist without penalties as sever as execution but even with cases legal jargon may provide sufficient cover to keep them on the books. Publication of the law in the form of a decision table, however, might make them impossible to hide. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

BTW, in an open society fortunes like poverty or ignorance are not a matter of luck. Perhaps one is born in poor environment and is uneducated, but one can still choose how long one works and what type of culture one consumes. Classical cultural goods aren't in any way more expensive than pop cultural goods. And even if one earns minimal wages, one can choose working 12, 8 or no hours at all. 217.168.4.68 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true, there would be no correlation between the income level of parents and that of their children when they grow up. But there is. --Sean 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a correlation between cultural level of parents and children. I can hardly imagine that literate parents would raise illiterate children, although the opposite may be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your main confusion is to take the phrase "what we are is a matter of luck" and interpret it is "what we are is an entirely a matter of luck". If you are a complete materialist determinist then everything is a matter of luck (or destiny, which amounts to the same thing here) and logically no-one can be 'blamed' in a moral sense for anything. Their genes, or their environment, made them do everything they did. C. S. Lewis addressed this saying (paraphrased) "If this were true then we could blame no-one, not even Hitler, for the things they did. We might have still decided to go to war to stop him, but he would be in no way morally guilty.". If what you are is not entirely a matter of luck then it becomes possible to judge or evaluate someone morally. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Creation-evolution controversy article may be of some help. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]