Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 30

= November 30 =

Is the Chinese government trying to increase the death rate of its own people to cope with overpopulation?
The reason I've begun wondering is that I've heard that China's gov't is cynically marketing tobacco to its citizens. With the air pollution in China there will be a nasty synergistic effect. Thanks. I realize that the Reference Desk can't speculate on this, but if there were a newspaper pundit or well-known blogger who has already discussed the possibility, then it could be referenced and commented on here.Rich (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm guessing no, since the government is easing its one-child policy. The Chinese really, really like to smoke, and according to Smoking in China, the government has a monopoly that "coughs up" 7-10% of its total revenue. Draw your own conclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Restrictions on tobacco were slow in coming to America, too. As the Chinese smokers age and the millions upon millions of citizens with emphysema and various cancers mount up, they'll start to get the message. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One is very tempted to point out that the death rate of the Chinese people will remain steadfastly at 100%, irrespective of the policies of the Chinese state. More speculatively, see bread and circuses on the possible motivation of states to provide their citizens with simple pleasures to keep them complaisant. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the denominator in death and birth rates is usually time, and the numerator is either number of people dying or # of people dying per unit population. But by your reasoning, as long as any reproduction continues, the birth rate will remain at 100% also--1 human for each human birth.Rich (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's like the old story about a guy asking what the death rate in this one community is, and the other guy answers, "One to a person!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, in reference land, please see . Smoking kills 90 times as many Chinese as HIV/AIDS, and the price of tobacco can likely increase while keeping government revenue constant. EllenCT (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks, that's helpful.Rich (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe lung cancer gets the HIV victims before full-blown AIDS has a chance to set in? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that many governments have tobacco monopolies. Thailand and the Philippines come to mind, and in the past, Taiwan and Japan.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Professional domination services in Sweden
As Prostitution in Sweden explains, it is illegal to buy sexual services in Sweden. But does this also apply to professional domination services, which often do not include sexual contact? --Viennese Waltz 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to contact a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not phrased as a request for legal advice. Someone can certainly provide legal cites if they can find any. Dismas |(talk) 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Provide all the links you want, just don't presume to interpret them for the OP. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the government's bill (p. 136-137) "sexual relation" normally means intercourse, but other sexual activities are also included. Nude posing is not considered a "sexual relation". I've only looked for precedents by a quick Internet search and didn't find any. It seems that there is no clear-cut answer to your question. Sjö (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Seek legal counsel" is very clear-cut. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And is also completely the wrong answer. It was clearly a request for legal information, not legal advice.  Are you able to deal with any question of a legal nature without interpreting it as a request for advice? --Viennese Waltz 22:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask whether there was a law. You asked whether it was illegal.  I hope you have better luck paying to get laid than asking questions. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That last comment might be fit for a teenage boy's locker room, it's kind of embarassing here. Asking whether something is contrary to or forbidden by criminal law does not, prima facie, constitute seeking legal advice. In this case here, I can imagine all sorts of reasons why this question might be asked without having any real life implications for the OP or for any of their acquaintances. Sjö did some research (so did I, but I only found Swedish language links that looked like they might be addressing the question, and I don't understand Swedish, and I don't trust google translate) — others might find some court decision, or comment by a legal scholar, or even interpretation by activist lawyers, for example. Just let the question be. You don't have to answer it. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference Desk guidelines explicitly say that requests for legal information are allowed. I quote from : "general medical and legal questions ('What treatments are used for diabetes?', 'Which countries recognize common law marriages?') are fine".  If you want to go against what the guidelines explicitly say, get a consensus to change the guidelines first.  --Bowlhover (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Does X count as a common law marriage in Fratistatistan?" is a request for legal advice, and that is the proper analogy of the "are professional domination services legal in Sweden?" question. Whether there are laws mentioning such services is a different question. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)