Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 13

= December 13 =

Colorado Prop 64
In Colorado Prop 64, marijuana is legalized. However, because of the supremacy clause, marijuana is illegal. Is marijuana in Colorado legal or not, and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.184.207 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit murky. Read Legal history of cannabis in the United States for some insight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * State prosecutors are not required to prosecute federal law. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And it seems that the feds have significantly backed off on enforcement. If enough states follow the leads of Colorado, Washington, etc., pot will eventually become decriminalized at the national level. This, by the way, is the beauty of the American federal system. As I was reading somewhere not long ago (don't recall where), we have a history of various states trying something, and if it works out, it can eventually become the law of the land. The states conduct "clinical trials", in a way, prior to broad acceptance. Women suffrage is a good example of that theory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of Louis Brandeis' famous statement about "laboratories of democracy" in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's who they were quoting, yes. And it's a good answer to those who ridicule the US for having 50 separate ways of doing things. This is the "bottom up" approach to democracy, rather than the "top down" approach that an all-powerful central government uses. This is a part of the answer to the OP's question. In theory, the feds could "punish" the states by withholding funding of some kind, which is how they forced the states to accept the 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970s. But there doesn't seem to be any incentive to do that beyond words - criticizing states for doing something that's illegal at the federal level. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both are technically democratic in nature. One is just at a higher level. — Melab±1 &#9742; 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The US constitution and the laws passed by Congress are the supreme law of the land. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a lab rat. — Melab±1 &#9742; 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's no longer a Colorado state crime. That is the difference. There is no incompatibility here with federal law. — Melab±1 &#9742; 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The relevant distinction here is between, "Legal in Colorado" and "not illegal according to Colorado state law." Cannabis will remain illegal in Colorado until it becomes legal under federal law, or until Colorado secedes from the union, whichever comes first. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 23:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd agree there's non incompatibility here. Colorado Amendment 64 doesn't just legalise cannabis or make it no longer a state crime. Per our article, it provides for the "commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale" and has been implemented with a special sales tax etc. It's one thing for the state government to not aide the federal government in cracking down on federal crime by making the stuff a federal crime. It's another for them to be effectively actively subverting it by involving themselves in activities illegal under federal law. Or to put it a different way, while at the current time it seems the federal government have decided to ignore most of what's going on there, it's not totally clear this will hold to a new executive. If that happens, a possible federal-state showndown, at least in court, may be eminent, despite there being no change in the actual laws. 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How commonly do Greek-Americans give pre-Christian Greek names (NOT Biblical names or Christian names) to their children?
When I was elementary school in the '90s, a relatively large portion of my class was of Greek origin. Many years later, I found out on Google Maps that the school was situated next to a Greektown. Some of my Greek classmates were related (cousins, specifically). And all of them seemed to have Biblical names or names that would be considered very significant in Christianity (i.e. Kostantina, Maria, Nicholas, Steven, Eva). Later, I watched an episode of Postcards from Buster, which featured a Latina-Greek girl, whose father was Greek and mother was Hispanic. I remember that she was given the name "Athena". That's the name of a greek goddess. Now, that made me think about the frequency of pre-Christian Greek names. How common are they in modern Greek society and Greek-American culture? Do pre-Christian Greek names have any significance in Greek Orthodox culture? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you define your question better? Would you say Saint Thekla had a Christian name?  Are you only looking for names like Hercules/Herakles? μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 71.79.234.132 -- probably a lot of pre-Christian names have been "sanctified" by becoming the name of a saint; see http://www.eortologio.gr/data/eortes/namedays_september.php for example... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In the U.S. Greek community, naming girl children for ancient goddesses is fairly common, in my experience. (I once had a boss named Afrodite.) Boys named for ancient Greek gods, heroes, or historical figures (Alexander, Odysseus, Apollo, Pericles, etc.) are also not unknown. Deor (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that Christianity grew up in a hellenistic environment, a lot of the "Christian" names are "pre-Christian" greek names. Stefanos (or a cognate) is first recorded in Homer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. I do that too. See this however. You can in fact keep doing it for all eternity. Contact Basemetal   here  23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aristotle Onassis springs to mind - although he was a Greek Greek rather than a US Greek. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Telly Savalas was a U.S. Aristotle. Deor (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting at the beginning of Telly's Category:American people of Greek descent, just looking at the letter "A", I found Diogenes Allen and Demosthenes Konstandies "Dee" Andrecopoulos and his brother Plato Andros... I'm sure you'll find more, though this won't answer "how commonly" either, but these names do exist among Greek Americans. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(An attempt at answering the "how commonly..." part). Here in Australia, the local equivalent of the Vital records department publishes a yearly list of given names (to that year's newborns) in order of popularity. Perhaps some of the U.S. state offices of vital records collate similar statistics? Of course, they do not include information on the parents' ethnic ancestry, but it's probably the closest info to what you're seeking. For a list of links to vital records offices in the U.S., see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/w2w.htm Here in my local jurisdiction of Victoria, Australia, you can find a year by year list of the most popular baby names at http://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/utility/about+us/data/ and click on "popular victorian baby names per calendar year" (in practice, the top 100 of each gender). I don't know if this will help answer your question, but I thought it may interest you. 121.219.43.121 (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: for U.S.-wide name data, visit http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/, and click on the "popular names by birth year" tab. You can see yearly lists of the top 1,000 names. You can also check the popularity of a particular given name over the years. Hope this helps! 121.219.43.121 (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking in an absolute fashion here, but over the years, as someone who has written a few articles about Christian saints, I've looked over the old Holweck Biographical Dictionary of the Saints. Based on that book, which lists virtually every name of saints, official and popular, up until the time of its publication, it is very hard for me to imagine that, at some time or another, virtually every name of a Greek god has not also been the name of at least one Christian martyr. Based on that information, it is also likely that several Greeks in the intervening period were named for the Greek gods, and some others for the martyrs. That being the case, the only way I can think of to determine who any current Greek named their child for, be it a relative or friend with the same name or a Greek god or a Christian martyr, is to ask the parents, and, maybe, try to consult historical records of the person that they were directly named after. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

is it better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons or the right thing for the wrong reasons?
is it better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons or the right thing for the wrong reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That in my opinion is asking for an opinion, which we don't answer here on the Ref Desks.--Aspro (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm unhatting this. This is fairly clearly and definitively a reference to a specific philosophy, and I wanted to know which one.  Is it deontologism? utilitarianism?  etc.  You obviously do not need to answer with your personal opinion, but rather with references from the field of ethics.  Sorry if I was unclear about this.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the question you have asked. Take a few minutes and clarify yourself so we can help you. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What are the kinds of philosophies that deal with "is it better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons or the right thing for the wrong reasons?"
I already tried to modify the above to read this way, but someone reverted it to an ugly hat. So we will leave that one derelict and abandoned.

Now, my question is what kinds of philosophies deal with "is it better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons or the right thing for the wrong reasons?" I mean like deontology and utilitarianism. Overall is there something like a consensus among professional philosophers and ethicisists about which is better? Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would use "Ethics" or "Ethical Philosophy". It's big topic, but hopefully you'll find what you'll looking for. Keep in mind that philosophical branches may overlap in practice, like many other disciplines do (i.e. Biochemistry as a branch of Organic Chemistry). Some schools of philosophy may apply different ways of thinking to the same phenomenon. I'd say that your current question is still too broad. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, when it comes to research, context is especially important. Your question, "Is it better...?", uses a pronoun. In order to simplify your question, you may want to narrow your context to X phenomenon. Also, logically speaking, a person may give any of these responses and support their response with evidence or reasons:

If that person answers "no", they may mean that one is not better than the other or that the reverse proposition is true. In logic and language, you must be specific what you mean. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is [universally or contextually] better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons than the right thing for the wrong reasons.
 * No, it is not [universally or contextually] better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons than the right thing for the wrong reasons.


 * @OP: could you give some concrete examples of "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" and vice versa? That way we'll know we're all on the same page. Contact Basemetal   here  17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We are going to need some fairly good definitions of "right things" and "wrong things" and "right reasons" and "wrong reasons". In terms of religious belief, and I'll be specific to Christianity here, if a person does something that is clearly to others "the right thing", like perhaps trying to stop a wife abuser and inadvertently maybe killing the abuser, but he does it because he is hoping to win the woman for himself, then by standard Christian morality he probably is morally in the wrong, even if some might say in some other sense that what he did was the "right thing." Motivation of the individual involved, and the specific context in which the action in question takes place, are pivotal concerns in questions of this type. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation needed! What "Christian" perspective are you speaking from? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More or less according to the Ten Commandments, specifically Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. If the motivation is wrong like because someone is doing something that someone might consider good for reasons virtually everyone might consider wrong, and perhaps not even actively considering what some might call the "right reasons" before doing so, the status of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the specific action in question at least regarding at least the morality of that active person's actions might well be "wrong" to some degree. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right defined terms would be a prerequisite to writing a homework essay, but we don't actually need any definitions, because coming to a judgment or arguing in favor of one is not our purpose--it's an invitation for opinion and debate. The question as asked almost sounds like homework, but the OP is already familiar with two schools he thinks are relevant in the hatted section, and he can read the articles on them.  Instead he wants, what, exactly?  I could easily give my opinion, but I won't the question should be hatted and if the OP wants a recommendation for basic books on philosophy he should ask for them. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article on everything (or close enough)... check out Consequentialism. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An interesting case of somebody doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is Oskar Schindler who saved 1200 Jews from the Holocaust, not because he was good but because he was a megalomaniac and needed people to worship him. This was hinted at in Schindler's List, when he was talking with the German officer about how sparing a life can make you feel like a god. StuRat (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how someone can "do the wrong thing for the right reasons". What would be an example of this? Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delusions would be one way, say if they were convinced somebody was a demon and they killed them to protect mankind. A simple mistake would be another example, say where a person is supposed to follow procedure X, but thought in this circumstance it would be better not to follow the book and use procedure Y instead, but they turn out to be wrong and get a lot of people killed needlessly.  StuRat (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What's MPAA's beef with "Fujian"?
"Fujian" appears twice in MPAA's global anti-piracy strategy. What does it refer to? Presumably it's not the Chinese province Fujian, though piracy is rather rampant there. WinterWall (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference is to a 2010 lawsuit - The North Face Apparel Corp. et al. v. Fujian Sharing Import & Export Ltd. Co. et al., 1:10-cv-1630, (SDNY). [Apologies if that's not the correct citation format]. See, for example, this article. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Danke. WinterWall (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)