Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 29

= July 29 =

Japan Revenge and World Domination
I think Japan has not forgetten the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think the Japanese have forgiven the Americans for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think they still hold a grudge and they may be planning something to get back at America and conquer the world. Maybe they have a secret weapon. Is there something that the sneaky Japanese are planning or there's really nothing at all? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is your opinion. I try to be neutral. From my personal experience, some Japanese continue to remember the atomic bombings and become emotional especially during history class and may have chose certain letters and numbers (e.g. the date it occurred) to commemorate the incident on their license plates. Some others, on the other hand, think that the US forgave them. Public opinion is mixed. IF (big if) Japan is planning something sneaky (I hope not), then we might never know. There are more than enough nuclear weapons to end this world. Just out of curiosity, any word on whether Japan apologized for their actions in WWII? --Mayfare (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they don't seem willing to accept any responsibility for the war and the genocide they committed. This is a problem for their relationship with those countries most affected, China and Korea.  Their history books are also highly biased in a pro-Japan POV.  This is a problem for their movements towards rearming.  It makes the US and others uncomfortable if they rearm without first admitting the mistakes of the past, which would seem to make them less likely to repeat those mistakes. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hush, hush! If anyone's going to take over the world, it'll be China or Russia! Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Japanese public opinion on the bombings is mixed, but those who have lost relatives or friends or seen the explosions' aftermath would be more likely to condemn the bombings. Regarding apologies, see Japanese_atrocities and judge for yourself, but remember that China and victims of Japanese atrocities are not unbiased.
 * Here is a long New York Times article covering the atomic bombings, Japanese textbooks, and government apologies. According to it, "the mood in Hiroshima is not one of anger toward Americans, but simply frustration at what is seen as their callousness and insensitivity", "...frustration that South Koreans and Chinese feel when Japanese officials refuse to apologize for World War II", and "the textbooks, which are censored by the Japanese Government, seem intended to avoid unpleasantness of every sort. They give only cursory attention to Japan's invasion of China and attack on Pearl Harbor, sometimes describing them in a way that makes them sound like natural disasters unrelated to human behavior, and they treat the atomic bombing in a similar way." I also remember seeing, on Wikipedia, the percentages of the American and Japanese public that belive the bombing was justified, but I can't find the data now.
 * As for sneaky revenge, political parties in democratic countries are motivated mostly by popular opinion. Starting a nuclear war or bringing about economic sanctions certainly won't assist any incumbent party in the next election. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Around Anzac Day the media here dredges up all kinds of stories and I remember vaguely something like a war's end quote from a prominent Japanese promising they would dominate the western world by commerce. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They need to work fast, what with the low birth rate, high life expectancy, and near-total lack of immigration. OtherDave (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a country which has committed its own atrocities to focus in on apparent atrocities committed against them as a way of putting themselves up as "victims", even if they started the whole thing. Ergo, the Japanese response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is used to absolve them of any complicity in WWII or their own horrible treatment of the Koreans and Chinese, and similar things are done in regards to Dresden. (I'd be first in line to say that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were massacres of civilians without question, but that hardly absolves a country.) I'd also be willing to venture that the Japanese people don't associate themselves intimately with the government of the WWII period, which is probably less of a stretch there than it would be in a democracy like the USA, and so are focusing on the aspects in which "the people" were victimized, not the ways in which "the soldiers" or "the government" did victimizing themselves, but that is just my own speculation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, consider how easy it is for you to say "I'd be first in line to say that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were massacres of civilians without question, but that hardly absolves a country." We all know they were horrible atrocities, but we weren't responsible and the people who were are not in power. It doesn't bother us. Plus, 'they' did horrible things, so it's okay... And everyone knows that WWII was the 'good war' with good fighting evil and winning, so that's all okay too. Right? Absolutely not getting into any sort of ranking of atrocities and crimes, but we all see history through a fug of propaganda and myth. I don't really see how the Japanese are any different in this regard. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the big difference here is that most Americans, for example, can say, "yes, they were massacres of civilians, but there was some purpose to them—the atomic bombs were part of a purposeful, and successful, strategy to cause quick resolution to the war." Whether they are right or wrong in that, I don't see the Japanese saying that in their discussions of their actions in China or Korea, or the Germans saying that in regards to their mass killings. That's a pretty big asymmetry if you ask me, and I think it does say something about the relative moral standings of the events in question. Targeting civilians with aerial bombs in wartime is certainly no moral high ground, but I think one could argue that it's not the same thing as death camps, systematic rape, systematic torture, etc. --Panoptik (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As The Onion put it: "Nagasaki Bombed 'Just for the Hell of it': Second A-Bomb Would Just Have Sat Around Anyway, Say Generals" Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Each of us is the hero of our own life story. I suspect this is true of countries, too. ៛ Bielle (talk)

JFMAMJJASOND
Hello. The initials of each month in the Gregorian calendar is JFMAMJJASOND. Does the bolded have any significance (maybe from Greek mythology)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it is a coincidence. Or, IT'S A HUGE CONSPIRACY!!! Paragon12321 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is a conspiracy. Otherwise, why would September be the 9th month when sept=7, October be the 10th month when oct=8, November be the 11th month when nov=9, and December be the 12th month when dec=10?  Obviously, someone purposely crammed in two extra months: July and August - therefore turning SOND into JASOND.  I blame Jason D. for doing it. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at the Wikipedia articles for each month, you'll see that their English names come from a variety of sources, and you'll learn why September is no longer the seventh month. Much more interesting than tracing hocus-pocus pseudo-patterns.--Wetman (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Wetman is probably just covering for the Secret Overlord's nefarious plan to invade the calendar. ;-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 08:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a widespread belief in the U.S. that the JASON Defense Advisory Group got its name from the months, though the Wikipedia article says that's not so. OtherDave (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Its all to promote a radio guy: '''J. Jason, DJ. FM, AM.''' Edison (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can thank roman emperors for july and august. Julius and Augustus, respectively. -LambaJan (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Small nitpick: Julius Caesar (as in July) was not an emperor. His effective successor, Augustus Caesar (as in August), created that position for himself. --Anon, 07:50 UTC, July 31, 2008.

Actually, the conspiracy was the Greeks creating English. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Joy?
Here's one of the most abstract and personal questions the reference desks have probably gotten. Do you find life enjoyable? I always puzzle over the seemingly-unending happiness that many people feel, because to me, almost every day comprises only tedious pre-arranged tasks that must be accomplished. I'm not in depression, but I'm almost never happy either. Utterly stolid are perhaps the best two words to describe me.

As a second question, do you actually *feel* a strong sense of affection around relatives or friends and miss them when they leave? I've never missed a companion before, so that feeling is not comprehensible to me. It's strange, the supposed "basic" human emotions. --121.29.120.204 (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments suggest to me (by no means an expert) that you fall somewhere along the line of the autism spectrum. Many people (particularly males) have the same sense of detachment to a greater or lesser degree, but are still able to live a perfectly normal life, and indeed may have abilities in other areas that compensate. Again I am by no means an expert. Jooler (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "a perfectly normal life" by male standards, Jooler? Maybe 121.29, you haven't found your passion. You might like to read Passion (emotion) and Stoic Passions. Maybe you're a stoic from a long line of stoics... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Julia. Autism is more common in males but it is by no means exclusively male. You may perhaps be interested in one of the books on the subject by Wendy Lawson. Jooler (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ill agree with the OP I feel bored and numbed 90% of the time and hate life, I am not depressed, but have also only ever longed for ex girlfriends, never friends or family. And I am quite sane thanks


 * I do enjoy life (not every part of it, not all of the time, but on balance) and I do feel affection for friends and relatives. Most people genuinely have those feelings. But I think you're overestimating the happiness of the people around you. Most people put on a happy face when talking to other people, unless they're very close. My mother is delightful to talk to and cheers up everyone around her, but in private she's often depressed and unsure of herself. My father seems detached in the stereotypical male way most of the time, but he has a deep emotional bond to his children and he has a passion in life (teaching). If you didn't know my parents as well as I do, you'd probably never notice these things. So don't jump to conclusions. You might want to read An Anthropologist on Mars, by Oliver Sacks, about Temple Grandin. -- 81.98.253.215 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Joy is a fleeting experience. Good sex ranks on a par with excellent pizza. Aim for serenity and productivity. And take time consciously to give yourself credit when you've accomplished something as well as it could be done.--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Well, we can’t give medical diagnoses here, so I would caution against suggesting any sort of mental condition. Indeed what the OP describes is also consistent with the normal range of human emotion.


 * I’m not sure where you live 121.29, but many parts of the developed world are currently addicted to happiness. The way happiness is viewed seems to be that there is something wrong with you if you are not always completely happy. Nothing could be further from the truth. A little controlled melancholy is necessary for a healthy life, just as is occasional happiness. Life and joy always fade. True happiness I believe can only be found in the little things. Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens as it were. I highly recommend the book Against Happiness: In Praise of Melancholy by Eric G. Wilson. Although the author is slightly long winded, he does a very good job of depicting the Brave New World culture in which we now find ourselves.


 * As to your second question, I think you are defining “miss” too narrowly. I think I do miss family members, but not in the way you seem to be thinking of missing someone. I notice the absence of that person’s presence, the absence of the excitement or humor they bring to things, but I rarely miss people in the painful homesick way. I think this just stems from being somewhat introverted. Perhaps this is your experience to, 121.29? --S.dedalus (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not diagnosed with autism. I can communicate both verbally and in writing with proper conventions and without repetition. S. dedalus:  yes, my experience when a relative leaves is exactly the same as yours.  I usually enjoy the absence of a family member because I prefer being alone, not participating in group activities.  --121.29.120.30 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My IP address changed from 121.29.120.204 because I'm behind a router with a dynamic IP. --121.29.120.30 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

countries and discrimination
are there any statistics on the level of discrimination in countries? which country has the most discrimination? which country has the least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk • contribs)


 * That's hard to quantify directly, but people do measure wealth inequalities (see Gini coefficient etc.), and I think that part of the Human Development Index measures entrenched inequalities... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Inequality is, of course, not necessarily related to discrimination in any what whatsoever. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a "quantitative surrogate" -- something which can be relatively directly measured, and which partially stands in (in certain circumstances and contexts) for something else which is very hard to quantitatively measure at all... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Job Of The Philosopher.
Please can any one tell me what the job of a philosopher is. i am a student of philosophy and the course is kind of law but with no particular job interest. and i hate it. please i need to no what someone with a degree in philosophy can do or where he or she can work apart from teaching. Darldave (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A number of philosophy majors go on to law school and have successful careers as attorneys. Apart from that, writing seems a likely choice.  Really philosophy is a very broad field, so the number of career possibilities stemming from its study is limitless.  GreatManTheory (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are post-baccalaureate fellowships at the NIH for bioethics, business ethics consulting may be a live option without a graduate degree (I never heard back from the companies that I sent inquiries about what educational background is required for their jobs, so they aren't ruled out), there was a guy answering an Edge.org question who claimed he preferred hiring philosophy majors for business jobs in the film industry because he felt they made better decisions. Basically as long as you stay away from metaphysics and are sure to have decent technical background (statistics, maybe calculus, economics, etc) then you shouldn't be too hard pressed to find work, but the only jobs I know of that only require a philosophy background are those dealing with ethics.--droptone (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also many fine jobs for philosophy majors in the food service industry. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's applied philosophy author and more, Alain de Botton. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of incredible jobs on offer to people with philosophy degree's however if you are an average student, with a mediocre degree from a nothing-special college/university, then you probably won't get a good job. You will probably find that a philosophy degree does no more than show you are capable of learning and the best option may be to take a vocational conversion course into something with good employment opportunities. Philc 0780 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As an undergrad, I had to declare a major and chose philosophy for the reason that only philosophy majors were permitted to take certain classes. In the first of these, the professor told us that X thousand of philosophy PhDs were awarded in the US in the previous year, and that there were something like 17 jobs available as professors of philosophy. That was probably the single most useful thing any professor ever said to me. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True for many areas in the humanities. When I was a freshman, the head of the English department told a group of us that the department had found 300 different jobs that English majors could hold.  Surveying grads, they found that more than half of them were... teaching English. OtherDave (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Civil law obligations of people without permanent adresse
If someone don´t have an adresse, how can he receive a cease and desist letter/order and similar documentation? Does it mean that he has no civil law obligation since many, if not all, procedures are based on letter being sent to an adresse?


 * See our article on Notice. There are other ways of informing people of their obligations, such as posting in the newspaper.  I believe the standard often used is that the method must be reasonably calculated to give notice.  GreatManTheory (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Casting vote
"The voting members of the Executive Committee shall be the Executive Officers listed in Section 5.1. The casting vote shall be held by the Chair." What is the 'casting vote'? Seans Potato Business 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See casting vote - basically, in the event of a tie, the Chair's vote decides the issue. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have checked that first. Does the Chair get to vote normally or only in the event of a tie? Why do you suppose the Chair is given the casting vote and not the President? Seans Potato Business 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would imagine the person with the casting vote is, in most situations, allowed to vote normally. However, the local rules of the particular organisation should clarify that for any given actual instance; there may be variation.  In general, the Chair is the presiding officer of the body over which he has the deciding vote; again, perhaps there is local variation in a given instance, but I think that one's quite regular.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would assume to the contrary, that whoever has the casting vote will not vote unless there is a tie. In the Australian House of Representatives, one member of the government is elected "speaker of the house" and then effectively acts as chairman/ convenor, voting only in the case of a tie. I'm guessing this is the general procedure, because the chair has the duty to remain impartial until the last moment. 202.89.166.179 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose in the case of government it is more usually done in that fashion. I was thinking from the point of view of a corporate board or other committee.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll enjoy Kevin Costner's new film. Swing Vote.--Wetman (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true for the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, but the President of the Australian Senate has a deliberative vote, but not a casting vote. In order to preserve the appearance of impartiality, the Speaker is not permitted to vote - unless there's a tie, in which case his/her casting vote decides the issue.  Whereas the only time the President of the Senate can vote is during a general count of numbers;  if it results in a tie, the motion fails and the President is powerless to change it, not even if he/she had chosen to abstain from voting in the general vote.  For the same reason applying to the Speaker - the appearance of impartiality - the President of the Senate hardly ever votes in a general count of numbers, and thus hardly ever votes at all.   --  JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One important reason for the person with the casting vote to not vote normally, is that this could then create a tie vote. Note that having an odd number of voters, including the casting vote, is no protection against this, as people may be absent or abstain. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Similarly, in the U.S. Congress, the Speaker of the House has the right to a vote on all matters, presumably since the Speaker is considered a representative in his or her own right. The vice-president of the U.S., under the Constitution, is President of the Senate, but can only vote to break a tie.  According to this page, no VP since Schuyler Colfax (left office in 1873) has cast more than 10 such votes, and 11 VPs (including to my surprise Lyndon Johnson) never cast one. OtherDave (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

commas
Are the commas appropriate in this sentence: Notices shall include, if applicable, the deadline for submission of business. Seans Potato Business 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They look appropriate to me. They are setting off a clause, "if applicable", that can be removed without affecting the meaning of the sentence. I think the sentence might flow better if the clause were moved the end: "Notices shall include the deadline for submission of business, if applicable." (You also might want to take this question to the Language desk. - EronTalk 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'd move "if applicable" to the beginning: If applicable, include the deadline for submission of business in the notice.    Even better, The notice should include any deadline for the submission of business. OtherDave (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heaven in space
If someone dies in outer space, for example an astronaut or spaceman/woman, do they still go to heaven? I mean, since religion has been based on Earth and never in it's construction was the possibility of going into space, nearly all "old school" religions give the impression that heaven in "up there" or equivalent to being in space. Is it a requirement to die on Earth to go to heaven? What is the church's position on this? ZigZap (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter where a person dies, they aren't going to heaven (or hell). The church's position is that "God" is ruler and creator of the entire universe, so it doesn't matter where a believer dies. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "three-tiered" model (earth, firmament, heaven) is, I think, usually interpreted to include "outer space" as part of the "firmament" tier. So heaven is still "above" it, although obviously we don't mean in terms of "up" and "down" here.  Maybe God meant to include an appendix on how gravity works but forgot!  (A pity; there are people who would like a few pointers on where to look!)  :-)  Let me see if I can find a Wikipedia article on the three-tier model for you.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I found firmament, but it could use some work... Of course, I suppose most of Wikipedia does too!  Maybe it will help you anyway.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And a lot hinges on what you mean by "the church." Not every religion believes in an afterlife.  And what you mean by "heaven."  For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines heaven as "the state of supreme and definitive happiness."  In other words, from this viewpoint, it's not necessarily a place up in the sky.  As for dying, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, only two individuals are regarded as not having died: Enoch and Elijah.  The consensus seems to be that both made it to Heaven; Genesis has Enoch walking with God, and Elijah arose in a fiery chariot.  OtherDave (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ".. religion has been based on Earth and never in it's construction was the possibility of going into space" - that also applies to aircraft travel, or balloon travel, or airship travel, unheard of when most religions were founded. Many people have died on board aircraft, with no implications for whether or not they went to heaven (or hell).  These days, scientists consider the atmosphere, stratosphere etc to be part of "the Earth", but I doubt if early religion-founders would have thought this way. --  JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:JackofOz's comment showed me that I wasn't very clear in my response. :-)  The ancient "three-tier" model has the following: (1) the earth (2) the "firmament" (e) heaven.  "Firmament" is sometimes written as "sky", which is where the confusion comes in, since nowadays we often use "sky" to refer specifically to Earth's local atmosphere.  However, in the original usage, the firmament was considered to be a single unit going all the way from clouds to stars (many "celestial sphere" models had an outermost "firmament" sphere or the equivalent to hold the fixed stars).  So, in modern times, it would make sense to say that the "firmament" would also incorporate "outer space", since that seems more consistent with the original intent.  Rabbi Pinchas Frankel postulates an opposing point of view here which may be of interest.  He still doesn't equate "outer space" or "up there" with heaven, mind you.
 * In any case it would seem to be a moot point; since it is pretty much an established point of Christian theology that all of the universe falls under God's jurisdiction, therefore you can't accidentally "fall off the world" if you see what I mean. I hope that is clearer than my last comment!  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 11:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a field of study that focuses on how one could affect one's personal environment?
1. I want to study the types environments or situations that people get into that can be personally classified as good or bad.

2. I want to study the effects on people or the environment that go through these situations or environments.

3. (and most important of all) I want to study techniques of how individuals can break up these situations or environments, or build up the "good" ones. (specifically how one person can make the world a better place)

I thought of some examples of some small scale ones, but I would also like to study large scale ones too, like government.

-a situation where some-one's life is compartmentalized, ex: they are a completely different person at work vs at home.

-An environment where only one train of thought is allowed

-An environment where there is bonding over the hatred of others

-Or just an environment where there's a lot of people talking behind each others' back

Uh, is there something already like this that I can study?

If not, what should I become a master in so I can get the authority to get this train of thought to gain weight?

A doctorate in psychology was mentioned to be near the right path to getting to research this.

Thanks!

69.129.127.151 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like sociology than psychology, to me. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this sounds like sociology. If you're planning to take a major decision like studying for a doctorate, you should probably consult an advisor at the university (or other institution) to make sure you are getting the most appropriate course you can.  There's nothing worse than accidentally enrolling yourself in a course and then finding out it's a lot more boring than you thought it was going to be!  ;-)  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like either sociology, psychology or even politics (based on your point 3, and the mention of government). I think people can help you the most if they give a short reading list for these disciplines that would give a representative sample of what you might plausibly encounter at university (actual experiences depend a lot on the lecturer, tutor and other students). From my experience, a very good "sampler" for politics is Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood. It's used as a textbook for a university in my home city, and is quite interesting in its own right. For psychology, find out what the textbook is for the course you might be studying - they seem to all be reasonably similar, since psychology is a fairly well organised discipline, with a clear idea of a curriculum for beginning students (compared to sociology and politics). 202.89.166.179 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Social anthropology? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At-will employment in Canada?
I have been reading about the U.S. doctrine of "employment at-will" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment, whereby an employee who is not bound by an employment contract may be terminated without cause or may quit without cause.

Does anyone know if a similar legal doctrine exists in Canada? Any background would be appreciated. Phlonx (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not too helpful, but each province has a "Labour Standards Act" that defines things like that. Here is BC's NByz (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X's assassins
Malcolm X was assassinated by "Norman 3X Butler" and "Thomas 15X Johnson". I haven't yet been able to find an explanation of the "3X" and "15X" names -- were those somehow associated with Malcolm and/or the Black Muslims? Was it a common thing to have some kind of "X" as one of your names? Why 3 and 15?

Thank you.

CSWarren (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Malcolm X said about his 'X' that "the 'X' is meant to symbolize the rejection of 'slave names' and the absence of an inherited African name to take its place. The 'X' is also the brand that many slaves received on their upper arm." I assume the other 'X'-s were there for similar reasons, but I don't know about the 3 and the 15. D AVID Š ENEK 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the numbers were used to identify the individuals from other people with the same names.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They sound a bit like homeopathic remedies, representing very low dilutions of some powerful substance. Edison (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorical device name?
What's the official term for a rhetorical device for mentioning something subtly as a threat, but which doesn't seem it? For example, by saying "And if we are to really contribute to this company, consensus is better than mediation." as part of a long speech which otherwise doesn't mention mediation at all, to imply you will force people into mediation (believed by your audience to be A Bad Thing) but in such a way that it is easily denied? I read about how this technique is used in politics somewhere to frighten the bejesus out of people sub-consciously, but I can't remember what it is called. 82.34.42.70 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt you were thinking of something as simple as Fear, uncertainty and doubt 'FUD' ? 87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly it could be considered a form of paralipsis. Deor (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is paralipsis the same as "veiled threat"? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. :) 82.34.42.70 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Deor: I don't think paralipsis matches this example. Have you seen Wag the Dog? that press conference where for no reason they start denying that there is a B3 bomber just to start a rumor that it exists is a great example of paralipsis. --Shaggorama (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"personal Lord and Savior"
I'd like to better understand just what is being communicated, in terms of religious affiliation, by use of the formula "to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior." Is there a one-to-one correspondence between users of this formula and Evangelicalism? Or is it a subset or superset of evangelicals? Our articles sacrifice and Christianity both mention the phrase, but both are vague and poorly sourced where this phrase is concerned. --Allen (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing it kind of implies is the priesthood of all believers... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a phrase that can be used by any (christian), but as you have suggested - tends to be associated with more evangelical denominations.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not typical of (Roman) Catholics, though many Catholic theologians would probably agree that a Catholic individual's relationship to Christ is highly personal -- e.g., via the doctrine of transubstantiation, when a person receives the eucharist, he is consuming the true body and blood of Christ. You can hardly get more personal.  To analogize and generalize, it's like American flag stickers on private cars: that sticker doesn't mean that you're politically conservative, but I'd pay you 50 cents for every Democrat with such a flag if you'd pay me 25 cents for every Republican. OtherDave (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal of debate about this among theologians. To require, as a precondition of salvation, that one accept "Jesus as one's personal saviour" implies that salvation is not a gift, but a reward. This is antithetical to much of scripture and, regardless, portrays God more as someone conducting a transaction than as a loving creator. Wikiant (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also saying that not only do you believe in Jesus but you also believe in their understanding of the trinity. -LambaJan (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd add that the origin of the "personal saviour" doctrine in the American Great Awakenings is important. It was the time that the responsibility for salvation was more specifically placed on the believer, their actions and their reaction to the Good News, rather than on their adherence to doctrine, attendance at church meetings and church membership. Steewi (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! What I'm really trying to get at is not the meaning of the phrase, or what groups agree or disagree with it in principle, but rather the remarkably rigid linguistic formula.  I don't hear, "Do you believe Jesus is your personal Savior and Lord?" or "Do you think Christ is your Savior, personally?" but rather, word for word, "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"  It's as if some influential institution published these words and said, "This question is what separates members of our movement from everyone else."  But perhaps the specific wording is just a folk custom that doesn't correspond to any formal institution or well-defined movement.  --Allen (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Custom, mantra, incantation? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go for custom. I don't know that it's "rigid" so much as "habitual," almost the way people say "bread and butter" rather than "butter and bread."  As suggested, though, it tends to be more Protestant than Catholic, and probably more evangelical than mainline (e.g., I have trouble imagining Presbyterians or Episcopalians talking much about their personal lord and savior).  (I think shibboleth would be too strong.)  More a leading indicator, the way New Yorkers wait on line rather than in line. OtherDave (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A customary or traditional phrasing, I think would be the best way to describe it, as User:OtherDave says. The doctrinal background mentioned by User:Steewi is of interest, but the common phrase itself is just a common-or-garden custom.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "rididness" also helps with the flow of things. There is an old joke where a priest was having trouble with his microphone.  The priest says "There is something wrong with this mic."  The congregation answers "And also with you" (assuming the priest had said the traditional/ritual greeting of "Peace be with you").  Particularly the stucuture you are talking about is noticable in the Roman Catholic rite in the declaration of faith said during Baptisms and Easter. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a protestant thing, but I think it came in early enough, and has been around long enough, that it is in the vocabulary of most Protestant denominations. Many Christians would have trouble giving a clear definition, and I put it in a category of "Christianese" jargon that just, sort of, pops out and is used to identify as Christian and demonstrate it to others. Other phrases used like that are "washed in the blood of the lamb", "slain in the spirit" and so on. Most of them have established meanings, but the meaning isn't necessarily widely known. The closest definition I can give (from 15 years of protestant educations and sermons) is the one I gave above. Steewi (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first appearance of the phrase "personal Lord and savior" in Google Books is "The Bulletin", published by J. Haynes and J.F. Archibald, Sydney, Australia, 1884, followed by "Missionary Review of the World, 1888. It appears in a book by "Religious Education Association, Association of Professors and Researchers in Religious Education" in 1906, in a report by Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A, General Assembly - 1913, and in a book by "Committee on cooperation in Latin America, by the Missionary education movement," 1917. In Google News (found at Newspaperarchives.com) its first appearance is 1912, in a sermon at a revival in Newark,Ohio, (The Newark Advocate, Oct. 5, 1912, page 9, where in the altar call, the evangelist, Dr. M.H. Lyon (denomination not stated) said the now-classic formula "...if tonight you are willing to turn your back on the old life and receive Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, God for Christ's sake, will blot out your sins..."   The phrase does not show up again until 1930, in a Presbyterian sermon in Oakland CA which included "The Bible truth of Christ as personal Lord and Savior is indispensable." (Oakland Tribune, March 10, 1930, page 1). It did not appear in the indexed newspapers until the 1950s, when it appeared 6 times, all with "accepting" or "receiving." It shows up once in the 1960's, 22 times in the 1970's, 24 times in the 1980, 90 times in the 1990s, and 303 times from 2000 through the present. The recent high number may reflect more papers from that period indexed, or the popularity of the phrase among Baptists and televangelists and  "evangelical" denominations.  Edison (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks, Edison, that's fantastic. Especially the Dr. M. H. Lyon reference.  Thanks to everyone else, as well.  --Allen (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found more info on "Dr. M.H. Lyon." He was ordained a congregational minister, and served at Presbyterian churches. The formula is far less Baptist or "evangelical" in its origin and early popularization than one would expect from recent usage. Rev. Milford Hall Lyon, of Cambridge, Massachusetts was born  Feb 10, 1868, in Iowa, and died  Aug 1, 1953 in Denver, Colorado. He preached at 8,000 locations in 36 states and gained 150,000 conversions.Edison (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)