Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 10

= August 10 =

What is a city in which...
Hi all! I'm considering moving to a new city, for a change of scenery. THis city can be anywhere, since I'm a computer programmer and can work remotely if need be. What is/are the city/ies that:
 * 1) . Have free public transportation?A
 * 2) . Have free public Wi-Fi access
 * 3) . Have the best quality tap water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.158.13 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the last two, but we have an article about Free public transport. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. schyler (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And i forgot to mention the cities don't have ot be all of these ato once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.158.13 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are willing to have a job or go to college... I live in Charleston, SC. I ride the bus for free because everyone who works (or goes to school) at the local universities gets to ride the bus for free.  WiFi is free around the universities, at the public library, and many other places around town.  Drinking water is just fine - but the university provides free bottled water, so I rarely use the tap water. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've heard (and briefly seen) good things about Portland OR. San Francisco CA is also nice, if you can handle the price tag (damned expensive city to live in).  Atlanta, GA is a city I've considered moving to.  but seriously, you just can't beat Boston MA - nothing's perfect there, but they consistently manage to get 3/4ths of the way on multiple dimensions.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nova Gorica. Or did you have any particular geographic limitations in mind as well? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Invercargill offers some potential, also. Gwinva (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I find odd is that you don't seem to care about the things that actually really seem to matter on a daily basis, like cost of living and climate. I live near Boston and we have reasonably priced public transportation that can get you pretty much wherever you need without any trouble (for $60/mo. you can basically have unlimited bus and subway access, and between the two can get almost anywhere you need); our tap water is fine by my standards; there are some areas of the region that have free WiFi (much of Cambridge does). But we also have very high cost of living, brutal winters (by my standards), and humid summers. In my mind, the latter three are what affect me the most day to day. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't mention which country you want your city to be in - I guess that means you must be American? :)  Gurumaister (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Milton Keynes, was supposed to be such. Otherwise, it is Heaven.     MacOfJesus (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ... what? What in the world does this have to do with the topic? 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Milton Keynes, is in UK not too far from London. It is the town of roun-a-bouts. Started 30+ years ago and was supposed to be Eutopia.  How free it is I do not know.  It could very well be ad rem.   MacOfJesus (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In most English cities (at least) you could easily live within a mile or even half a mile of the city centre, where most of the shops are, and hence not need public transport. The tap-water quality is as good as or better than bottled mineral water. Free wi-fi can be found in some places - I'm not an expert on that.


 * I'm surprised that places in the US of A have free transport - that is even more communist than the Moscow Metro which has never been free! And it would have to be paid for by taxes, which I thought were the deadly enemies of all Americans. 92.29.114.222 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure any US cities actually have free transport. The only example given was not really "free" — you had to work at a given institution to get it, and I'm sure the institution pays for it in some way. That being said, your generalizations about Americans and taxes are off the mark. We have lots of taxes and we do subsidize things in many cases when it can be shown to be a smart financial move in the long run. Or often, even if it can't — as long as there is a lobby for it! --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several American communities provide free bus service to reduce traffic jams and parking problems. (Mostly paid for out of local property taxes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Streibel or Striebel?
After reading denaturalization cases of Nazis in America, I learned that many Eastern Europeans were trained as Nazi concentration camp guards and ghetto liquidators at Trawniki from 1941 to 1944. I also learned that after Soviet troops overran Trawniki in 1944, the Trawniki-trained men were reorganized into a battalion, which I'm not entirely sure of the spelling. Is it spelled Streibel or Striebel? 06:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.90.160 (talk)


 * German wikipedia spells it Streibel, here (named after Karl Streibel, I assume). 93.95.251.162 (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Martin.
 * The spelling Streibel is also used in English wikipedia: Trawniki concentration camp. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Martin again.

how did Jesus convince a billion people he's the messiah?
Could I convince a billion people that I'm the massiah? Say, a billion Chinese and Indians - 500 mil of each? How? Please be as detailed as possible, and also mention potential pitfalls to my plan. Unlike a certain someone, I don't want to end up crucified! 92.230.233.247 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Same answer as: How did George W Bush convince the whole world he was the President of the United States? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't vote for messiahs...
 * Woman: Well, how'd you become messiah then? 92.230.233.247 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (made   off-topic bits and bobs) – ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constablewick ─╢ 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus convinced around twelve people he was the messiah (and even then, one of them sold him out), and he had to get crucified in the process (assuming you take the New Testament account to be literally true in this regard). It took some 300 years before it really started to catch on, and that was mainly because an incredibly powerful person converted and made it the state religion. It has taken some two thousand years to get to its current state. So I'm not sure Jesus is a great role model for your "get messiahed quick" scheme. Better examples might be Jim Jones, Joseph Stalin, or Sun Myung Moon (who I should say, I don't really think are all in quite the same category, but they are people who inspired various religious or near-religious following, for different reasons). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's rather reversed. In fact the emperor Constantine I officially recognized and legalized Christianity (though it didn't really become the "state religion" until later) because it had already spread very strongly among the lower classes and slaves of the cities of the Roman empire without any government support (and in fact in the face of sporadic government persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian).  Constantine didn't have any strong interest in religion for the sake of religion; his insight or motivation was that he realized that persecuting Christians ultimately weakened the empire (while many of his predecessors had been of the opinion that it strengthened the empire). AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus, did the opposite. Often referred to as the Messianic Secret.  He asked his disciples who they thought He was.  Do remember the Seventy-two Disciples. When Pilate asked, He said that "it is you who say it"! He did not try to convince anyone:  "...are you also going to go away..."?    MacOfJesus (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can start by raising yourself from the dead. A few other miracles scattered here and there would also be helpful to your cause.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If he gets the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series, he'll have my vote. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned, you don't vote for messiahs! So, basically, what we have is that I have to convince twelve people I died, but then come round again within three days?  Can I stick around for a while more after that, or do I have to ascend immediately?  Also, what other assorted miracles do you suggest I sprinkle about.  Thank you.  By the way, I will not forget you guys, you are definitely getting a piece of the action. 92.230.233.247 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Gospels, written by others and not Jesus give a number of cretitable points:
 * 1. The Miracles.
 * 2. The casting out of demons.
 * 3. The witness of the demons.
 * 4. The wisdom of Jesus in answering and conversing with those who attempted to trap Him, and others.  MacOfJesus (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Number four is easy, I've been an eloquent member of the Flat Earth Society for years, and have sent people home in frustration. 92.230.233.247 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From all acounts, Jesus was a terrific orator and very insightful. Remember the Seventy Weeks Prophecy from Daniel. It says:

The Messiah had been prophesied and promised for millennia, and now the prophet Daniel, who had a very public role and thus responsibility to Jehovah, had been given the exact timeframe for, not only the appearance of The Messiah, but the rebuilding of Jurusalem, AND the Messiah's crucifixion. Please see this article for a more in depth explanation. It is an untruth that Jesus "convinced around twelve" he was the messiah. It is a half-truth that Jesus asked His disciples who they thought he was. It was soon after His baptism and his 40 days in the desert that Jesus was directed by His Father to The Twelve (See Matthew 4:18-25 for this account]. It was in a short amount of time that Christ's message of God's Kingdom spread all throughout the district of Judaea that Jesus held his Sermon on the Mount where there were "crowds (Matthew 5:1)" so many people had apparently been there before his arrival, even. Jesus also had a great effect on individuals, such as the Samaritan Woman (John Chapter 4) who, despite centuries of ingrained racism knew she had just spoken to The Messiah, a Jew, and not a Samaritan. Very moving indeed. Rather than only ask His disciples who they thought he was, Jesus made public declaration of His role even to the pharisees, a very dangerous act (John 7:25, 32, 37-52). So, not only did Jesus convince an entire Roman Province of His role, but his teachings had, even before his death, spread to Rome and Asia Minor (the disciples baptized 3,000 very soon after His death (Acts chapter 2)). It is a very sad fact that after the deaths of The Apostles Babylonish teachings infiltrated Christianity, like the Trinitarian Godhead, immortality of The Soul, and an everlasting torment in Hellfire. Please feel free to contact me on my user page if you have any more questions, or post them here. schyler (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to your second question: you could spread a great message and become a False Christ to many people. You would only be fulfilling prophecy, though. schyler (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Schyer, the person you speak to (no name, just a number) believes the earth is flat. I am not going to convince him/her to accept the Nicaen Creed or even be of "good will", Lk 2 v14.    MacOfJesus (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just doing my job schyler (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard to believe he's sent people home in frustration. Maybe only so because they thought he'd be funnier than he turned out to be. It's a little known fact that on his fifth voyage, Columbus did, in fact, sale off the edge of the earth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they just realized you can't fix stupid. Googlemeister (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Saint Brendan discovered America before him in a little leather boat, currach! Tim Severin shows.  The historian now all accept as possible, factual!    MacOfJesus (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they accept it as possible or factual? I mean it is possible that I drove to the store yesterday at 120 mph, but did I?  Googlemeister (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Historian tend to be a very dis-believing lot. But look at the article page Saint Brendan and you will see the history books have been changed accepting this notion.  Saint Brendan's logs describe what Tim Severin found on the way, and confirmed.  In the little leather boat there was room for only five!  The Irish Government insisted that they had to take on board the most sophisticated modern radio.  When they reached New Foundland, the Canadian Navy went to greet them and could not find them.  They were too small to see, in the sea!  All this was telavised on Irish Television (RTV).  They were so confident in proving the travel event of Saint Brendan, so long ago!      MacOfJesus (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The recipe for becoming a messiah (or similar) is tried and true, if not sure-fire (lots of people have started down the path, but only a few have made it big-time). it goes as follows:
 * Develop a deep insight about the world - there's no such thing as a dumb messiah
 * Try to inspire that insight in others in the world - aim big, because the world really would be a better place if all people could see it through your eyes
 * Talk to a lot of people, but only teach a few in depth - that's pretty much unavoidable, anyway.
 * Die after you pass the inspiration on to a few, but before you've accomplished your main goal (whatever that might have been)
 * Wait a couple of centuries for people to forget who you were, so they can focus on the idea instead of the man. Basically you have to become an icon for what you taught, rather than have what you teach be seen as a product of you (the way it is when you are alive).
 * Your original insight will have passed down from ear to ear - embellished, corrupted, misinterpreted, mixed with other ideas, and otherwise hidden under a growing mound of dogma - but it will still be there to inspire people. it helps if you try to teach in a strongly rather than weakly religious society (this is why Socrates never had a religion founded on his teachings); it also helps if you die horribly and unjustly since people (perversely) interpret that as a sign of good character. However, try to put off the horrible, unjust death until after you've made a basic reputation for yourself; a lot of people have made that mistake in the past.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Socrares said that is better to be killed than to kill, it is better to be robbed than to rob. Would our OP accept this?     MacOfJesus (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EwaFkPMdlY Dust. Wind. Dude.] schyler (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When starting your own religion, it probably helps to be humble. According to Robert Wright's The Evolution of God, Jesus likely never claimed to be the messiah or the son of God. Those stories evidently emerged later as a way to explain or understand the brutal end of his brief ministry. —Kevin Myers 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that the titles 'Son of God' and 'Anointed One' (Christ/Messiah) were customary titles for kings in the ancient Near East. Jesus' followers may well have misinterpreted his references to 'the Son of Man' (in Greek, literally 'the Human One', 'ho ton anthropos') as being connected with this tradition, and their own aspirations for a kingly messiah to overthrow the tetrarchs and governors imposed on Judaea by the Romans. It's as though a modern preacher had said 'We must lead the world to freedom', and his followers misquoted him as saying 'I am the leader of the free world'. Not to say Jesus wasn't a tremendously influential, important, even revolutionary figure - I'm a follower myself - but the present state of Christian theology may well be very far from what any of the original community had in mind. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Study the article page Messianic Secret. "The Son of Man" reference was a reference to the prophacy of Daniel.  The disciples had a very different expectation of the kingdom.  They all ran off at the crucifixion.  Even denied and betrayed Him!   MacOfJesus (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think that Jesus is a poor model, if you plan to live out your messiah status. Why not broaden your religious horizons? Muhammad, for example, got to be a prophet and live out a full life, and didn't have to be anyone's divine son. He got to marry and wage war and all of that other fun stuff. Jesus is a pretty stiff board by comparison, up there with St. Francis of Assisi in the "being divine is not fun" category. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And Muhammad's descendants couldn't agree on who was the proper heir, and we ended up with two major branches of Islam. Kind of like with the Great Schism in the Christian church, except Jesus didn't cause that. Jesus was smart enough to avoid having kids. So to be a good Messiah, one thing you probably need to do is to be celibate. (There goes a lot of the fun right there, ja?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, all the major early schisms in Islam were about who had the right to rule the Muslim community, while all the major early schisms in Christianity were about semi-obscure doctrinal disputes (usually in the area of Christology). I guess it depends on which you think is sadder, religious disputes over 1000-year old political struggles or religious disputes "over a vowel" (as the homoousianist vs. homoiousianist controversy has been described)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The simple answer to the OP's question could be, "He had a lot of help." Someone said recently on one of the ref desks that "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy". It could also be said that "a religion is a cult with an army and a navy". The early Christians didn't have one, and their cult nearly died off. Constantine had one, though, as did Muhammad, and they each knew how to use it. Which is why there are lots of Christians and Muslims, and very few Flat Earthists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever said that was quoting someone else: see A language is a dialect with an army and navy. --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Once the Christian Church had the military power of the Roman Empire behind them, they went around and killed priests of other religions who would not convert, destroyed or converted the temples, and to the best of their ability banned alternative religions. Then they continued until modern times to use the coercive power of the state to kill "heretics" whenever possible. "Anointed" Kings enjoyed the endorsement of God as a basis for taking food from the mouths of peasants or conquering other lands. Edison (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You could try your hand at some swords stuck in stones. 68.104.175.130 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In regard to Constantine and military power, please see Great Apostasy. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that rising from the dead is significantly more difficult now than it was back in the first century AD. Between EEG machines and modern embalming practices, your best bet is to adjust your 'get messianic quick' scheme to avoid this part all together. APL (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of reputable publications, including National Geographic, would seem to take a contrary view. Amazing how even death has become debased in modern parlance, and people are regularly reported as having died and returned to life.  The term "clinically dead" appears to have no plausible meaning.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting, Jack of Oz, that Jesus was just clinically dead in the tomb?   MacOfJesus (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. I neither accept nor reject the Church's position that he died and 3 days later returned from the dead, as I would not wish to offend the billions of people who have believed this over the past 2,000 years. I was commenting on the modern-day habit of describing the stopping of people's hearts on, say, the operating table shortly followed by a resumption of their heart beat, as "clinically dead but came back to life".  I know there are more complex cases than these, some involving apparent temporary brain death, but the fact remains: death is inherently irreversible - which is why the claim made for Jesus is so extraordinary.  He is the only person in history who is said to have died, really and truly died, and come back to life.   If that sort of thing actually happens on a regular basis to ordinary and unremarkable people, there would be nothing unique about what supposedly happened to Jesus, and nothing for anyone to believe in.  "Clinically dead" is in the same category as "dwarf planet".  In neither case does the adjective properly qualify the noun: a dwarf planet is not any kind of planet, and people said to be clinically dead are not any kind of dead.  There's only one kind of death - that is, death.  "Clinical death" is a complete misnomer and it should be expunged from the lexicon forthwith.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This may be of intrest: In Ornithological Circles, we often speak of; "coming back from the dead", some from your neck-of-the-woods. How logical is that?  A Pharmacist told me recently: "Take one tablet four times a day".  How logical is that?  MacOfJesus (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Creatures once thought to be extinct but now known not to be so" (good name for a band, btw) - yes, that reminds me of one of my early adventures in article writing, James Smith (ichthyologist), which, after almost 5 years, is still, sadly, at stub status. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it true, therefore, that as soon as Scientists get their practice correct they fall into the most illogical ideas and notions as the rest of us, humans? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The bit about Jesus and rising from the dead: have you forgotten about Lazarus, John 11(eleven), he was brought back to life from being in the tomb for so many days? (he did stink!). Whereas, Jesus rose to new life.    MacOfJesus (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I remembered Lazarus, and deliberately chose not to mention him, because when Jesus supposedly raised him from the dead, he (Jesus) denied he (Lazarus) had ever been dead in the first place, but had been merely sleeping.  But even if he had truly been dead, he did not raise himself from the dead, which is what Jesus is claimed to have done.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's convenient. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that could be taken a number of ways. To what were you referring, Tomorrow Time?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The best hermeneutic is the reaction of the people that were there at the time. The pharaisees went out and plotted the death of Lazarus too, many others became believers.  Yes, He did raise Himself from the dead.  Other accounts: The Father.   "The Father and I are One".  The original question; How did He convince a billion people...?  Don't be the billion-and-one!    MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mhm. So let's play a little mind experiment, shall we? Let's say I had a time machine and decided to visit quaint old Palestine cca. 33 AD, Saturday afternoon, around tea time. I take with me a simple, everyday household item, say a lighter or maybe a battery light. I show this to the good people of Palestine, demonstrate its use, explaining the device in detail and what do they make of it? They think I'm a magician who can make fire out of nothing or bring cold white light into darkness without a torch. Before you know it, my miraculous deeds are written up in some holy scripture or other, and 2000 years and a couple of dodgy translations later, voila, I'm bloody Merlin. Well, at least according to "the best hermeneutic", that is the reaction of the people that were there at the time. I can only echo your sentiment in the last sentence: don't be the billion-and-first to be convinced! TomorrowTime (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have greater confidence in the Common Sence of ordinary people. The reaction of the listeners at the time is only one pointer.  Please see the article page Biblical hermeneutics.  Better still study The Jerome Biblical Commentary on Hermeneutics and Saint John's Gospel.    MacOfJesus (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I am not a religious scholar and hence do not know the details, it seems to me there are four important stages: 1) Jesus, while alive, convinces some others that he is a person of note, 2) Others build on this after he dies/departs, 3) the New Testament gets written, 4) the New Testament acts as a sort of combined propaganda document, rule book, emblem, study-occupation, and manual, that keeps Christianity going over the centuries and allows its expansion; and cleverly it links itself to the existing old testament. Other "false Messiahs" existed who did not get through all these stages and have been forgotten. All the other major religions I can think of also have a big body of religious writings, so perhaps they are essential for a religion to have. Jesus did not convince a billion people he was the Messiah - it was Paul and Peter who did the marketing as far as I can see. Without them, we would not know who Jesus was. 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Social values as to respect to mother and father: Western vs. Eastern
As an Asian person, I wonder if in Western socials mother and father are very much respected by their children as in Eastern socials? My question is about filial piety / being grateful to mother and father / appreciating favours done by other perons /etc.

In Eastern cultures, murdering or injuring one's own parent is one of the most serious crimes proscribed by law (in some countries, such murder is punished with death).

In Buddhism, Gautama Buddha once said:

"'O monks! I shall now state the characters of a moral person. Hearken!...What are the characters of an immoral person? An immoral person is an ingrate, he lacks of gratitude and never returns favours received. Immoral persons praise ungratefullness. And what are the characters of a moral person? A moral person is thankful for favours received and reciprocates them. Gratefulness and filial peity are sign of a moral person...'"

As I have seen in Western media (I know so well that the media does not represent every aspect of socials), children regularly have conflict with their parents and act in a disrespectful manner towards their parents. This may be because of adolescent/teenaging nature; however, I think that Eastern teenagers have more calm nature than Western teenagers and are not as impetous as the latter. So, I wonder if Western socials would uphold such value as Eastern?

Thank you.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two arenas here. Civil Law and Religious Beliefs and practices.  The Christian Belief and is the Jewish Belief:  The Fourth Commandment; Honour thy father and mother.  It is in the positive active sense not the negative sense, i.e.: "Though shalt not...."      MacOfJesus (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced Asian kids do respect their parents more. My experience in my hometown (54% Asian) shows that Asian kids don't so much respect their parents as fear them. Plus, don't take media such as films and TV depicting Westerners as the truth. Aaronite (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * respect for parents is a near universal in social systems for purely pragmatic reasons: children have the urge for independence long before they have the maturity to be safely and successfully independent, and so there are a lot of social rules that try to keep them in line as long as possible to avoid the obvious tragedies. The rates of unnatural death and disfiguration from various causes, crime and property damage, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and etc., are disproportionately high among teens and young adults as it is; without societal pressure it would be through the roof. The differences between Asian and European in this regard mainly have to do with societal goals. western nations prize aggressive individualism and idealizes brash youth, and parent/child conflicts are a natural product of children experimenting with those social ideals within social constraints.  Eastern societies are less arrogantly individualistic - more clan/group oriented - and so children tend to focus their urges for independence into peer aggression/competition.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO children respect/fear their parents a bit more in Eastern societies (very vague) because they fear to embarrass themselves and their parents before other families ("don't do that or you will shame us and all your ancestors = all our neighbours will speak ill about us"). The children know that their actions can result in a loss of Face (sociological concept) not only of themselves but of their entire family, and fear the consequences. (all this is certainly incredibly vague)


 * Children in western societies (very vague) are a bit more free and rebellious and aren't constrained by shame to the same degree (many, but not all, care little what our neighbour speak about us - and most of our neighbours couldn't care less as long our actions don't disturb them). Western children certainly embarrass themselves but few blame the child's family for the actions of the child. You are responsible for your own actions. (this is also incredibly vague)


 * The first are a bit more repressed while second are a bit more rebellious. Personally I prefer the second, but then I'm a child of the West.


 * To beat, injure, or murder one parents (Parricide) is viewed with horror by both societies. It happens more than we think, but is seldom spoken of. Flamarande (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much light I can shed on this subject, but as an American living in Japan, I may have some insight. While living in Fukushima Prefecture, this happened. And more recently I witnessed some intense bullying by an older junior high school student who targeted a younger, smaller student from a different school whom he didn't even know, all of which took place on a public bus here in Kyoto in front of dozens of adults. Feel free to interpret these events any way you like, but it seems to me that the teenage bully on the bus was not at all concerned that he was shaming himself, his school or his family name - all of which were proudly displayed on his school bag and name tag. Nor was the Fukushima high school student worried what his family and neighbors might think as he marched his mother's head down to the police station, (granted it's safe to assume that kid had mental issues). The bullying incident could easily have taken place in America, as the student's behavior felt uncomfortably familiar to me. Food for thought I guess. Brian Adler 04:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAdler (talk • contribs)

White people have no culture is a common refrain amongst non-whites. The issue of a strong cultural/religious identity and conforming to cultural norms vs a strong individualistic drive to be independent are probably what leads to question posted. The cultures and religions of the east place a great store in revering one's parents and elders (as do the Abrahamic faiths, perhaps it just isn't practiced in Western cultures as it was preached?). For example an Indian person (by the way all of you, by "Asian" did you mean Indian or Oriental? "Asian" should really be banned as an adjective) would NEVER call their parents, parents-in-law, elder siblings, uncles or aunts by their first name; it is seen as tremendously disrespectful. Yet in (almost) all the preceding cases it is perfectly normal for Western/white people to do so. There is a marked difference in social values placed on the respect for elders in Eastern and Western societies. There isn't even any ambiguity or difference of opinion; a Westerner coming across this behaviour would think the Easterner was being tremendously respectful; conversely the Easterner would think the Westerner tremendously DISrespectful. Zunaid 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "a Westerner coming across this behaviour would think the Easterner was being tremendously respectful" I disagree that there is no difference of opinion here. A Westerner coming across someone who never called their elder siblings, or aunts and uncles, by their first names might just think it strange. There is nothing inherently respectful about it. Certainly there are traditions of respect for elders in the West: in my parents' childhoods in the UK, it was common to refer to aunts and uncles (including those who were not actually related to you, but rather family friends) as "Aunt ____" or "Uncle ____", and I still know people who do that. Note that the blank is their first name, and this was considered a respectful way of addressing them. Come to that, if my brother-in-law stopped referring to my dad by his first name, we would wonder what had happened to damage their relationship. We wouldn't consider it a sign of respect to stop calling him by his preferred name.
 * And I would strongly discourage you from treating the terms white people and Western people as describing the same thing. Reeeeeeally bad idea. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the problem with saying "white people have no culture" (apart from being a strange assumption that white people in all different countries and societies should share a single culture) is that is generally means "white people in America/Britain/Australia have no culture", since people rarely apply it to places like France where they can see the culture. And the mistake people are making is that the (average) culture of white people in America is the dominant culture in America, just as the (average) culture of white people in Britain is the dominant culture of Britain, and the (average) culture of white people in America is the dominant culture of Australia. Things that are normal standards of behaviour in America? That's the culture most white people have in America. Things that are normal standards of behaviour in Britain? That's the culture most white people have in Britain. Things that are the normal standards of behaviour in Australia? That's the culture most white people have in Australia. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I said it was a common refrain, I didn't say it was right or justified. And in that context, the equating of "white" and "Western" is a common line of reasoning. Zunaid 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But you equate "white" and "Western" in your own line of reasoning when you say "it is perfectly normal for Western/white people to do so". You don't seem to be using it as an example of a common line of reasoning that you do not subscribe to yourself. And in so doing, doubtless unintentionally, you exclude all the many, many non-white westerners (and white non-westerners) as basically not existing in your dichotomy. If you encounter a person using the 'line of reasoning' that Western people are white people, you can correct them, because it's a ridiculous thing to let stand. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

World Health Organization Structure
Why is North-Korea under SEARO and not WPRO. Does it have to do with development (SEARO being to highly developed compaired to WPRO) or is it a political question (something along the lines of: "we dont want North/South Korea in the same region as us, says the North/South Korean official.)--SelfQ (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have no idea -- but one interesting fact that emerged during the bird flu is that the WHO refuses to help Taiwan without going through mainland Chinese bureaucracy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dream of Gerontius (poem)
I'm trying to understand which bits of The Dream of Gerontius Henry Newman wrote, and which bits are quotes and snatches of existing works. For example, the Litany of the Saints features, and all the Latin and Greek bits are from pre-existing stuff. I think, based on bits and pieces I've found online, that the part that is the hymn Firmly I believe and truly is his translation of an existing Latin hymn, which has since become the well-known hymn? The hymn Praise to the Holiest in the height also seems to be a snippet from the poem, being one of the variants of the hymn he has angels singing. Is this also based on an older text (apart from Gloria in Excelsis Deo)?

Generally, I'm having a hard time working out which bits are him quoting, which bits are him creating original translations, and which bits are him making up completely original phrases. Does he quote any pre-existing English prayers or poems? Almost everything I can find online talks about the Elgar music, with very little on where the words came from. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a book by Percy M. Young on Elgar, Newman, the Dream of Gerontius, and the Tradition of English Catholicism, which may well be a good start (I haven't seen it). Inter-Library Loan is a wonderful thing, and if I read your URL correctly, there are at least four copies in libraries in London. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)