Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 June 13

= June 13 =

Phenomenology vs. Dialectics
How to these two philosophical systems diverge and converge ? 69.157.233.182 (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Consent for Circumcision
I would be most grateful if a user could please answer the following question: In 1959, an unmarried mother in England decided to hand over her newborn child for adoption  - (the father, a non British subject, had left Britain and did not even know that the child existed). The adoption agency found a suitable couple and duly informed the Children’s Department of the Local Authority about the proposed adoption and a Guardian ad Litem was appointed. Suppose the adoption agency had wanted the child to be circumcised. Who would have had to give consent: a) before the Guardian ad Litem was appointed,   b) during the period when the Guardian ad Litem was acting (namely, prior to the Court making the Adoption Order) and  c) after the Court had made the Adoption Order in favour of the adoptive parents?  Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure sounds like a request for legal advice, which the rules for the Reference Desk do not allow anyone to provide. Why do you pose such a question? Edison (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gone, dude. Legal action won't bring it back.  192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Edison is saying the question posed asks for a legal opinion, which we cannot provide. I can't even imagine why an adoption agency would ever want to do this.  I'd have thought it was an issue for the adoptive parents to consider.  -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am researching a purely historical event which occurred NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO and am trying to ascertain who arranged the circumcision of the baby and hence who had to give the consent. It is not asking for legal advice. Simonschaim (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

African tribe
I recall seeing a television program some time ago about a tribe of black Americans that defected to Africa to "live forever". They only ate natural foods, exercised daily and just focused on taking care of their individual bodies. What were they called? Is there a wiki article? --Endless Dan 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't think a group of African-Americans can be called a "tribe", there have been many moves to go "Back To Africa": see Back-to-Africa movement and Liberia. As for your specific example, it could be the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem who initially moved to Liberia, then on to Israel. Fribbler (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. It may have been the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. It was a fasinating story and I always wanted to read more about this group. Are there any other groups similar to them (black or otherwise) that have left the US to form a commune/group/tribe/whatever in another part of the world? --Endless Dan 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was Jonestown. But that didn't end so well at all. Many such "intentional communities" have been formed, but most don't seem to have left their home country: see List of intentional communities, and I suppose kibbutz. Fribbler (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And Liberia was founded in a similar fashion... СПУТНИК CCC  P 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

causes and consequences of fortunate or unfortunate actions
Who said of the study of history (or his own work) that its purpose was to determine "the causes and consequences of fortunate or unfortunate actions"? I've done a bit of googling, but it hasn't produced any results. I'm fairly sure it's someone famous, like Gibbon, Burckhardt, Vasari or Thucydides but I can't find a reference in their books. thanks, 203.221.127.19 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've drawn a blank on this, closest I get is Gibbon's famous "register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind" and Voltaire's "Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes". Mhicaoidh (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not, but worth a look anyway: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is rape worse than murder?? (Legal)
I have seen that many countries punish a rapist with death and a murderer with jail, fines and lashes but not death (Iran, UAE, etc). Why??. Is rape a worse crime than murder? Thank you a lot. Maru-Spanish (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the specific answer to why those countries do that, but you would have to consider rape in the context of the preservation of women's virtue, and the protection of what may often be seen as men's property. Rape has, at times in Western history, been defined as a crime against a man, ie. the victim's husband, making marital rape difficult to prosecute (an ongoing problem, to the best of my knowledge). On a purely ethical level, regarding your separate question of which is actually (absolutely) worse, you have to remember that almost every crime perpetrated by humans against each other is also carried out in its own way by nature: time and accidents kill, the elements wreck our homes and steal (more accurately, destroy) our property, and the truth itself can defame us, but nobody other than a human ever rapes another human. It doesn't prove any particular case, but it is a significant factor (to me) in the ethical debate. 203.221.127.19 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, some animals might be capable of raping people. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But that couldn't be described as "natural". :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some societies view any sex outside of marriage (including those who are raped) to mean that the woman's soul has been lost. In that case, it's considered a worse crime than murder, where their soul presumably is still safe. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be that rape in a particular cultural environment would cause more collateral damage than murder. It is possible that a rape might inspire a greater desire for revenge among a larger group of people than a murder would. A rape could be seen as not only being a crime against the woman but also, as was previously mentioned, a crime against her husband and perhaps even a crime against the grandparents of her potential offspring.


 * Also if one considers that there may be some genetic factors involved with being prone to becoming a rapist. The rapist would be seeding said family and society at large with a tendency towards extreme antisocial behavior again causing more ongoing collateral damage than murder. 71.231.122.22 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rape is pretty much universally agreed upon to be a hideous act. (Perhaps strangely) murder can be 'justified' in many people's eyes (say a husband murdered the man who raped his wife - many people may consider that just).
 * The difference, i guess, is the 'intent'. Most murders aren't random they are a result of another action - be it a quarrel, violence, money, relationship or whatever but they tend to have a 'reason' and many people can try to 'justify' the action of killing. Rape on the other-hand is generally either random or an act of abuse against another (often women but also remember men can be raped too).  I'm not sure there is a 'worse' in this scenario, but certainly I can envisage many more reasons-given for murder that the general-public may understand/see as justified than for rape (which to be honest i cannot think of a reason that would be justifiable in my - or even my projected eye of other people's morality). ny156uk (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

welfare states
Considering welfare states, are the most successful ones richer, more compassionate, or better organised? I know this involves at least some conjecture and opinion, but often people can provide a lot of meaningful analysis on the humanities desk, so I thought it would be worth seeing what people think. thanks, 203.221.127.19 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a good argument that certain 'human development' standards are a prerequisite to development (health, education etc.); welfare states tend to provide these. Also there is an argument that income disparity decreases efficiency because people become fractionalized or disenfranchised; the welfare state 'takes from the rich and gives to the poor' (both in terms of money income and income of goods and services).


 * There is also the possibility that high income states are welfare states because they're high income (easier to sell politically). Not that they're high income because they promote welfare economics.  NByz (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the terms you used have clear definitions, so the quality of my answer will be a function of the similarity of the measures I use to your specific meanings. The Heritage Foundation rates countries on the basis of "economic freedom" where, in general, more welfare = less economic freedom (because the state confiscates income from the people to pay for the welfare programs). If you compare HF's economic freedom measure to average per-capita income, you'll see that (on average) countries with more economic freedom (i.e., lesser welfare) have higher average incomes. The counter-argument to this is: "but what if the higher income is concentrated in the hands of a few." If you compare countries per-capita incomes to their income distributions (the "gini coefficient"), you'll find that (on average) countries with higher per-capita incomes have *more equitable* income distributions (dollar figures are adjusted to account for differences in costs of living across countries). Short answer: This evidence does not refute the position that welfare states are less successful (via lower average per-capita income) and less compassionate (via less equitable income distributions). Wikiant (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not true that states rated low in "economic freedom" by the Heritage Foundation are welfare states nor that states rated high in "economic freedom" are not welfare states. For example Burma/Myanmar and many African nations are low in economic freedom not because they are redistributing income from the rich to the poor but because a kleptocratic elite keeps most of the population from advancing.  The lowest country on their list is North Korea, which is hardly a model welfare state.  Instead, this fits the model of a nation ruled by a kleptocratic elite.  On the other hand, many of the top 20 most "economically free" countries (on their list of 157 countries) are frequently described as welfare states (e.g. United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Finland, Belgium).  As you've said, countries high on this list tend to have high GDP per capita.  However, many of them are also commonly considered welfare states.  One of these, Luxembourg, has a higher GDP per capita than the United States.  The top countries on the Heritage Foundation list are Hong Kong and Singapore.  Both have extensive social welfare programs.  So the Heritage Foundation rankings of "economic freedom" hardly support an argument that social welfare programs cause poverty.


 * This goes back to the issue of defining terms. "Welfare state" doesn't have a clear definition. For example, a state with mandated retirement benefits and a state with minimum wage protections might both be called "welfare states," but the economic impact of the two types of "welfare" are very different. Wikiant (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question, yes, of course the more successful welfare states are richer and better organized. Whether they are more compassionate than other welfare states is really impossible to answer since compassion is a very subjective quality.  Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are richer though sometimes not better organised according to this documentary by Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid, Sick Around the World and sometimes compassion is measured by a government's active care towards its citizens and by its politico-financial priorities. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How much do you know about history?
I need to know where a bomb landed in America.It came form the Japanese and ws launched during WWII.it didn't blow up until a few years later.I need to know the state and city it landed and exploded in. Mr. Green  Hit Me Up  About Me  18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the years later part but the bombs launched from Japan were fire balloons. The article says " last known discovery of a functional fire balloon in North America was in 1955 - its payload still lethal after 10 years of corrosion. A non-lethal balloon bomb was discovered in Alaska in 1992." But nothing about any exploding after the war. Rmhermen (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the fire balloons, only Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands were attacked by Japanese planes (except single airplane attack on the West Coast which did little damage) See Attacks on North America during World War II. Rmhermen (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're probably looking for the balloon that landed in Bly Oregon. See Balloon_bomb. But I don't think that bomb was stuck in the tree "a few years", I think a couple of days is more likely.
 * In addition to the fire balloons, there was also the bomber launched from Japanese submarine I-25, but those bombs went off immediately, as you might expect. APL (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the history of I LOVE YOU?
I want to know that what is the history of I LOVE YOU? is it related with Adolf Hitler? And how I LOVE YOU explored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaranpriT (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU 24.68.246.113 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with Hitler?  Corvus cornix  talk  04:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)