Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 12

= March 12 =

Shas Chardal or religious zionist party
I am confused. Is Shas party a Chardali or Religious Zionist or both?--Donmust90 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90


 * Google it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Donmust90, you probably know the answer to your previous question here. Chardali is a religious zionist organization, according to the answerers for that other question. So, this question is like asking "Is Shas party a religious zionist or religious zionist?", or in other words, circular. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chardal" is a description meaning Charedi-national[ist]". It's a distinction for those Haredim who recognize the State of Israel and potentially would serve in its military if not seeking an exemption to study the Torah full-time. Shas is identified as a Sephardic (and Mizrachi) Charedi party. I would describe its political platform as patriotic though not hard-core nationalistic as far as negotiating Israel's borders vs. "Greater Israel." No other descriptions are needed to differentiate its followers from other groups in Israeli society. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Crime fiction set in Birmingham, England
Is there any crime fiction novels that are set in Birmingham?--Donmust90 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90
 * Yes. See Literature of Birmingham.  See also   Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

website showing European nations with Muslim population being EU member and Eurozone member
Is there a website that shows the ranking of European nations with Muslim population in numbers, not in percentage, according to a) being a member of European Union and b) being part of the Eurozone?--Donmust90 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90
 * It's easy enough to construct such data from Wikipedia. Islam by country contains the Muslim population of every country in the world.  The articles European Union  and Eurozone list those countries.  Just cross reference the lists, and you can generate your own list simply.  For example, the top 5 EU members by Muslim population are:
 * France (4,704,000 Muslims)
 * Germany (4,119,000)
 * UK (2,869,000)
 * Italy (1,583,000)
 * Spain (1,021,000)
 * Four of these five are in the Eurozone (the UK is not) so move Italy and Spain up the list, and add the Netherlands (914,000 Muslims) to the list for top 5 Eurozone countries (Bulgaria with 1,002,000 Muslims comes before Netherlands in terms of EU Muslim population, but like the UK it is not a member of the Eurozone). If you need more complete lists than that, the raw materials are all here.  -- Jayron  32  04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclaiming of liability
I'm not asking for legal advice here, merely why a certain practice is practiced. I've noticed that, in many cases, especially but not limited to software (whether proprietary or free software), products or services, when something goes wrong, even if it harms the user or the incident was caused by a faulty product or service, the product's/service's company disclaims liability, to the maximum extent allowed by the law, even if they are informed of possible consequences. However, most jurisdictions have laws which specifically state that product producers and service providers must accept responsibility for any harm caused by the product/service. The policy would seem acceptable if the harm is caused by the improper use of the product/service, but the companies' wording of their disclaimers imply that this would be the case even if harm is caused by a faulty product/service. Here's an example, taken from a Microsoft EULA (relevant passages emphasized):

Without touching legal advice, my question is: why do companies want to, as much as possible, disclaim liability for harm caused by their products/services even if there are laws which state that they would be responsible in case of harm caused by a product/service, or even if the harm is caused by a faulty product/service? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Companies "want" to do something only to the extent that the people behind them want to do so. The people behind companies are the owners (for most large companies today, this means the shareholders) and the executives. The executives are ultimately answerable to the shareholders (who can vote to appoint or sack them). So basically, companies "want", and only "want", to do everything which the shareholders want to do, or which the executives think the shareholders want to do.
 * Most shareholders hold shares in the company as a way of investing their money (whether they buy these shares on the stock market or inherit them from their parents). This means what they want from the company is money in return (as dividends or capital gains). This means it is in their interest for the company to maximise its profits. Admitting liability beyond what the law requires you to bear reduces your profit. It is, all else being equal, contrary to the interest of your shareholders. Company executives who go around "giving away" money for liability which the law does not require the company to bear are not only hurting the shareholders' wallets, they are also acting in a way contrary to their contractual or (in the case of directors) legal duties.
 * (Some shareholders also have altruistic motives in holding their shares, but this is the exception rather than the rule, and even an altruistic shareholder who, for example, is owning the company in order to provide jobs for the employees, may still want to maximise profit in order to best provide for the employees.)
 * If one assumes the legal system is just and fair, every person (including both natural persons and companies) should be defending his or her or its own right to the best of his or her or its ability (and is entitled to do so), only then would the outcome of the dispute be a fair one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So that when you read it you say "oh well, guess I can't sue," stop persuing any further action, and take it as Jim Carey said "up the tailpipe".165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In reality, in the US at least, anybody can sue anybody over anything. Or they can try, anyway. I see where Iran is threatening to sue the producers of Argo because they don't like the way it portrays Iran. Their case is absurd, but some lawyer somewhere will give it a try, for a modest fee. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * People say that about "you can sue for anything", but it's far from true, at least if you mean "sue" with any meaning. What alternative is there? Any system has to allow you to file papers, then review it, then deal with it. And lest you think there's no consequence for filing frivolous lawsuits, there's a lot, starting with FRCP Rule 5. Truly frivolous cases are dismissed (FRCP 12(b)(6) / Demurrer) quickly and regularly. That's different from saying we have too many laws, or too many causes of action, both of which can be convincingly argued. The only kernel of truth to the "anyone can sue anyone for anything" statement, or alternative I guess, is a writ pleading system; the U.S. Federal government and most States have loose pleading standards, which is intentional, but it's not as though that system is just "anything goes." Shadowjams (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The famous lawsuit against McDonald's, over their coffee being too hot, was widely ridiculed as frivolous. Yet the plaintiff won the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is the case. It was about substantive causes of action. It prompted calls for tort reform, and resulted in some. But I'm not arguing about tort reform, just about the notion that "anybody can sue anybody over anything." One needs a colorable claim first, and as much criticism as the McDonalds case got, it did make such a claim. One that survived appeals. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All you need is a lawyer willing to take the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Appeal of erotic novels
Porn is mainly consumed by men. Erotic novels are consumes mainly by women. Most men can't hace all the sex they want, so the appeal of porn is obvious. Most women could have all the sex they wanted, so what's the appeal of erotic novels?--195.76.28.229 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth makes you think that most women can have all the sex they want to? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth makes you think that most men can't have all the sex they want to?  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It also raises the question that sex is a binary proposition, either you're getting it or not, and that's all that matters. Perhaps women are interested in the kinds of sex described in erotic novels, or the story around the sex.  Women can't all have sex with debonair princes, nor are they universally treated by their men the way that women in erotic novels necessarily are.  Not all men are comfortable or interested in the sort of sexual scenarios described in the Fifty Shades books, for example.  Women may not be, strictly, either.  For a counter-example, I don't necessarily want to be the leader of a revolution of Fremen on a desert planet, but that doesn't mean I didn't immensely enjoy the book Dune.  Being entertained by fiction doesn't mean that one has any personal desire to emulate the fiction, and that women read erotic novels doesn't necessarily mean those women want the kind of sex so depicted for themselves.  -- Jayron  32  12:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith -- I think that 195.76.28.229 means that women can have all the sex they want if they're not choosy and they don't care too much about the consequences. However, that kind of thing is obviously not what most women fantasize about.  Anyway, I'm a male heterosexual, and I can definitely appreciate many kinds of depictions of scantily-clad beautiful women, yet I have little interest in most kinds of straight-up porn, because overt tawdry sordidness is a turn-off for me.  Most porn actresses look like they've been smoking since childhood, and they have dingy dull-blue tattoos and a curiously greyish skin color and unrealistic boob jobs, and I'm really not attracted to them... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and even the "women can have all the sex they want if they're not choosy and they don't care too much about the consequences" is far from obvious if applied to most women, i.e. women of all adult ages in all countries, and not even obvious when applied to the target market of erotic novels. And both porn and erotica can be consumed by women or men as well as having sex with a partner, not just instead of having sex with a partner. Indeed, it has been known for partners to consult such material together, or so I am told. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One issue is foreplay. Many women want hours of romance before the actual act, like reading poetry to them, dancing, etc., and most men are unwilling to do that ("I have a boner, and need to jam it in right now").  Women find this less than than satisfactory.  On the other side of the divide, some men visit prostitutes, not because they can't get sex from regular women, but just because they want to skip the romantic stuff before and after ("You don't pay them for the sex, you pay them to leave after"). StuRat (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The most logical conclusion arising from the first part of your post would be "men pay to avoid the foreplay." But this is not the only trouble here. In both cases (pay to be left alone or pay to avoid the foreplay) we would be ignoring the fact that men can only be paying for having sex with a type of women who would not have sex with you, no matter what, unless you pay her. Some men seem to feel uncomfortable with paying for sex, so, hence the silly theories. But the thing is what it is. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * StuRat -- some men pay good money for the so-called "Girlfriend experience". I haven't and won't go to a prostitute, not for ethical reasons as such, but because of the previously-mentioned dislike of the tawdry and sordid. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I heard one interview with a female prostitute who estimated that the men she encountered in her capacity as a prostitute expressed more interest in talking than in having sex. She said that she had to curtail the time spent on talking to expedite the encounter. She expressed that loneliness required conversation as much as physical interaction. Thus she reported that her male clients gravitated towards in-depth discussion approximately to the same degree that they gravitated towards touching and other sex acts. Bus stop (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP's question was "what's the appeal of erotic novels?" A lot of literature covers scenarios the reader will never expect to be part of - crime fiction, historical fiction, science fiction, etc. Most women at most stages of life won't expect to be part of the types of scenarios described in erotic fiction (despite the OP's views on their ready access to sex). It's fantasy. It's escapism. It's fun. That describes an awful lot of literature. There is no puzzle here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The question posed is ultimately unanswerable. An erotic novel is a cultural entity. Cultural entities function on many levels. If something cultural were easily explainable it would be a failure and it would be ignored and dismissed as being crass, unimaginative, and base. No one would buy a novel if its literary contents were easily understandable. Thus a complex literary entity is created by any moderately successful writer which defies easy interpretation. It may be characterized as being "erotic" but in reality it is a complex literary entity. Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but all of that sounds like lit crit nonsense. Of course people buy novels whose contents are easily understandable.  I might buy torture porn because I enjoy reading about torture.  I like Rendezvous with Rama because I like reading someone's imagination of what an alien spaceship might look like.
 * If something "defies easy interpretation", that's either because the author was bad at explaining something, or it has no meaning at all. Take To Kill a Mockingbird, for example.  It's a story about racism in the Southern US, and about two kids growing up.  That's it.  The mockingbird is not a symbol for anything, Boo doesn't symbolize anything, and there are no hidden meanings.  The author herself admitted this:


 * "She denied there was any symbolism. As the questions persisted, she became testier and said she was just trying to write a book that a publisher would buy and publish and hopefully sell the movie rights as well [...] In a voice as cold and angry as a red-necked, Alabama sheriff confronting a civil rights marcher, she said, 'Those characters in the book were white trash. In the South, all the white trash are named after Confederate generals.' Stunned silence!"


 * Take the Old Man and the Sea, as another example. It's about an old man killing a marlin.  That's it.  When asked about symbolism, Hemingway said: "There isn’t any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The sharks are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit."  --140.180.249.27 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a writer writing and a writer speaking extemporaneously. There can be a disconnect between what an author says about a novel written and the novel itself. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right. One could take Hemingway's comment, and conclude there's no point actually reading the book now, since we know what it's about.  But what something is about, is not what it is.  Seinfeld is about "nothing", but that didn't stop millions of people enjoying it.  I'm always bemused, when I suggest a friend and I go catch a particular movie that they haven't heard of, and they ask "What's it about?", as if the subject is the only thing that matters.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell them "it's about 2 hours". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? I liked the Old Man and the Sea because it's a good story.  That doesn't mean there's any symbolism, or that it "defies easy interpretation".  The correct interpretation is that it's a story about a man hunting a marlin, described in a way that makes the reader want to know what happens next.  --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Some can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventures story; while others can read the contents of a chewing gum wrapper, and unlock the secrets of the universe." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Accidentally engaging in communion...
What happens if a non-Christian person attends a specific church for the first time, and not knowing anything about Christianity, ends up partaking in communion for the sake of conformity? Then after some months of doing research in Christianity, that person figures out that the little bread and water served during communion was a religious rite. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing happens. What did you expect? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The LDS Church Police come knocking on your door at 4:30 am, and charge you with "Eating the Saviour without permission". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the "eating the saviour" is a mockery of belief in transubstantiation, in which the bread and wine literally transforms into the body and blood of Christ. There is no real presence in Mormonism.75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is not intended as a mockery, but rather an improvised imitation of the ancient Egyptian rite of literal transubstantiation. Note the idea precedes the formation of the LDS denomination, and originated with the catholic church. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing 75's point, from what I can tell what they are saying is: JackofOz's comment 'Eating the Saviour' was a mockery of the belief in transubstantiation as only those who hold that belief (i.e. hold the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) would say you're literally eating the saviour. Now, this is a belief held by the Catholic church and some other denominations to this day (although some don't use the transubstantiation) but it is not one shared by the LDS which seems to be what the OP is referring to and was what Jackofoz referred to. The LDS and some other denominations may have their own Eucharist rite or sacrament, but do not believe in transubstantiation or the real presence instead the ritual is done in remembrance or something of that sort. Therefore the joke  'The LDS Church Police come knocking on your door at 4:30 am, and charge you with "Eating the Saviour without permission"'  didn't really work as the LDS church does not think they are 'eating the Saviour'. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing happens. It is a symbolic act which does not work retroactively, it is done out of remembrance of an ideal that the Christian already subscribes to. That is how interpret it in any case. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing theological at least, I don't know if LDS denomination has some sort of rules with inherent consequences attatched. I'm looking at this from a purely scriptural interpretation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And why would your "purely scriptural interpretation" matter to a non-Christian? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So that it is clear that I'm considering the issue independently from the rules and regulations of a particular denomination, be it LSD or SDA. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But, you checked some scripture? And there, it stand: nothing happens to the non-Christians who take part in the communinion, god won't punish them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did check Scripture. I don't disagree with your latter comment. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I am still puzzled by your contribution. Where in hell, sorry for the pun, did you read something to derive this "purely scriptural interpretation"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no verse that explicitly or implicitly states something will happen, and using Ocam's Razor, it leads one to conclude that what I said is more likely to be true than not. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Jesus and his disciples were celebrating the Pesach (Passover), and the wine and unleavened bread now referred to as The Last Supper were part of Passover feast. Jesus asked the crew to do this in remembrance of Him, and spoke symbolically of the wine and bread being his blood and body, but that metaphorical usage went over the heads of the founders of some denominations, who took Him literally. As to "what would happen", nothing would happen unless (1) you're allergic to wine or grape juice and/or unleavened bread; or (2) someone said, "Hey! You're not a member of this congregation!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The bit about him speaking symbolically and some denominations taking him literally - that would be your opinion, wouldn't it. Probably best to mark it as such, particularly on a reference desk.  No need to offend the millions of believers in transubstantiation.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it lost something in the translation from Greek to Latin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming primacy of knowledge of the original Greek, and is there a sole correct theological interpretation, and are you its author? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a actually a sole correct theological interpretation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? Do tell me more.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now, wait a minute &mdash; he didn't claim he knew what it was. The continuum hypothesis is either true or false, but I don't know which. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But even the claim that there is a sole correct theological interpretation needs support. I can certainly imagine an almighty, benevolent, magnanimous god who says "These interpretations are all correct, as long as they do not make their followers into preachy, little-minded pains-in-the-neck". It makes a lot more sense then an almighty, benevolent, magnanimous god who says "There is only one correct way, and I'll carefully hide it in ancient scripture in a way that only a tiny minority will ever figure it out, so the rest can go to hell!". Of course, even the first version would spell doom for most existing denominations ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you proposing, that the authors intended multiplicative interpretations? Again, the Razor, indicates that the simplest assumption is that an author of any work, intends a single interpretation, whether their intent translates into the desired interpretation, is another matter. There did not always use to be such confusion over interpretation, it is not impossible to imagine how devisive men and gentiles can introduce strange docrine to confuse the interpretations. Is was common among the pagan religious, see how the ancient cultures incorporated their neighbours' gods and doctrines, why then should Christianity not suffer the same fate over time? It happened even during the time of the first churches as noted in the message concerning the doctrine of the Nicolatians. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not nothing theologically. See 1st Corinthians 11:27-29: So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, it's hard to imagine someone accidentally wandering into a church, accidentally sitting down on a pew, and accidentally taking communion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I know someone who did just that (the wandering into church bit and the sitting down bit were deliberate, the communion was the accidental bit, to be strictly accurate). I think it was a Roman Catholic church, and she was in France. She received the bread and just casually said "thanks" (in French, I suppose, if that's really where it happened). Then she put it in her pocket and ate it later, so I don't know if that actually counts. When I explained it to her, she said "Oh, so that's why the guy gave me a weird look." IBE (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That applies only to those who understands the theological significance of communion at the time, and does not commit it in a respectful manner. It does not apply to those who do it so, unknowingly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to your personal extra-biblical tradition. Since that exception is not in the Bible, perhaps you could tell us which denomination, sect, or tradition generally believes it? Or which theologians? Or which popular Christian writers? This would make your opinion a referencable fact, which is helpful. 86.163.215.162 (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . It depends on what you did wrong. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A pit would open in the floor and you would fall to the fiery depths of hell. thx1138 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially if the nearest deacon has the controls for the trap door. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Truly, Bugs, do you believe Catholics are more interested in sending people to hell when they can than in forgiving simple well-intentioned ignorance of doctrine? My seven-year-old nephew has been studying for a year to learn about communion.  Are we supposed to believe that priests were yearning to excommunicate him had he eaten a host at age six? μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Well-intentioned ignorance'? Their ignorance was well-intentioned? Deliberate ignorance based on the idea that such ignorance would be better for all involved? What a bizarre turn of phrase.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a reasonable possibility that both Ndteegarden and I were exaggerating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about Catholics specifically. thx1138 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blessed are they who use small print when they jest, for they shall (usually) avoid being castigated ... Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)