Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 December 10

= December 10 =

Has J. Michael Straczynski ever revealed the meanings of names in Babylon 5?
Question by Ram nareshji deleted as probable copyvio of  Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Chin, Bertha, and Matt Hills "Restricted Confessions? Blogging, Subcultural Celebrity And The Management Of Producer-Fan Proximity." Social Semiotics 18.2 (2008): 253-272. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Dec. 2014, "Straczynski posts and interacts with fans in the following newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe and rec.arts.sf.tv. These messages and responses to fans, dating back to 1991 are archived at http://www.jmsnews.com/. I did a quick search there for "names meanings," and a lot of results came up, but I don't know if any posts answer your particular question specifically.  It seems like a good place to find such information if he's shared it, though.   --some jerk on the Internet    (talk)  13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Abducted Lifetime Movie About Prison
Since Jack's looking for Tim who is Still alive, did Tim steal someone's Identity to [Illegaly Stay] inside that other Person's house or did Tim purchase a New House?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)).


 * Most. Enigmatic. Ref. Desk. Question. Ever. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Google to the rescue! Searching on "lifetime movie prison jack tim" reveals the existence of Abducted: Fugitive for Love. (Which I am amazed to discovery does not have its own Wikipedia article.) I will leave it to another to try and parse the plot summary for an answer to this question. - EronTalk 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about Retaliation?
In my opinion, retaliation's wrong when the (Victim & Culprit) both have Families.

If the Culprit has no more Family, then the (Victim) or the (dead Victim's relative) has a Right to Retaliate against the Culprit by using the Process of Murder for example.

If we are not sure of the Culprit's guilt, then Retaliation's wrong even if the Culprit's an Orphan.

In the movie called Yevadu, after he pushed the Villian out of the window, how come the Girl didn't Call the Cops? It's becuz Retaliation's correct.

Is there any American Episode or Movie with my Appropriate Examples of Retaliation?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)).


 * Are you VenusStar84 logged out? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is VenusStar84? What is VenusStar84?(50.173.3.162 (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)).


 * He meant User:Venustar84. I don't see why he suggested that the IP was that particular editor editing logged out.  If you are not a registered user editing logged out, you would do well to create an account, because your IP address has changed within six hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It just seems like the kind of question VenusStar84 would ask. And if Venus is editing while logged out, it gives away their IP address, or the range anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer to your question, Questioner, is to move to someplace with the rule of law. In places where law rules, people do not have to spend much money making sure their homes are impossible to break into, people do not have to fear random murders, and on the other hand they don't have time to think about the need for retaliation.  It just doesn't happen.


 * After you move to a society with a rule of law, you can always send a bit of money back, open a school or foundation, and otherwise try to help your own community become civilized. For now, your first step is to leave - and good luck.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another way to look at it is with the goal in mind of minimizing the amount of violence in a society. If there is never any retaliation/punishment for violence, then you can predict that there will be lots of violence.  On the other hand, extreme retaliation/punishments, like killing the entire family of anyone who slaps someone, will also result in lots of violence.  The typical ancient compromise was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but modern punishments seem to be less severe than the crime.  Case in point is the 2011 Norway attacks, where a man murdered 77 people and was only sentenced to 21 years in prison.


 * I don't think the rule of law is all that important in preventing violence. You can have a dictator with total power, and as long as they are benevolent, that doesn't have to lead to violence.  On the other hand, many places with the rule of law, like the USA, have lots of violence. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "I don't think the rule of law is all that important in preventing violence" - Stu, boy have you lived a sheltered life. of course it is extremely important.  if there's no rule of law, and somebody rapes your sister, there *is* no question of pressing charges. (Which requires the rule of law first).  That isn't even on the table, there's no such thing.  If you don't think this creates more violence in terms of vandettas, etc, you haven't seen any failed states. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're clear on what "rule of law" means. It just means that individuals decide things on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to having it all written down as law (or if it is written down, those laws are ignored by all).  So, they might very well haul the perp in front of a judge, but he is free to decide the punishment himself.  Many communist nations lacked the rule of law, as the charges, guilt, and penalties were all determined by the Communist Party, and any trials were just for show.  However, this doesn't mean that they would just let rapist or murderers go free, unless they happened to be Party members, but that's not all that much different from rich people going free in the US because they can afford enough lawyers to find all the flaws in the case.


 * What you seem to be talking about is anarchy, which never exists for long. Even in a failed state some type of authority soon takes control, whether it's tribal or religious leaders, local warlords, drug lords, an invading army, etc., and all of those have an interest in maintaining social order, too, so they would pursue charges against criminals. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the lone Entertainment question, here are 358 answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Questioner, you might benefit from reading our article Social contract. Pertinent to your concerns about retaliation, in a "civilized society" one agrees to relinquish one's rights to take retaliation in return for the assurance that Society, through the State's laws, will carry it out on your behalf to the degree agreed to be appropriate by Society. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That applies if he's in a society that benefits from rule of law. His reference to the film Yevadu evoked for me that he may live in a culture where rule of law is not nearly powerful enough.  I don't have a good solution for him, I'm afraid.  He likes ethics, and asked about the ethics of vandettas.  The ethics of vandettas are that they should not happen (an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind), and that if he enjoys living in peace and unmolested, he needs to move to a society that enjoys better rule of law.  I would add that he can then work from a distance to bring some of it back to his roots.  Sorry I don't have a more positive outlook for you, Questioner.  I just think that it's highly possible the social contract in your part of the world isn't worth the paper it's written on :/  Move someplace where it is, and adopt the ethical values from there.  Send home what you can of them. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)