Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 September 24

= September 24 =

Why does the United States support Israel?
It seems like we do is make jhadists mad, waste money, and compromise our principle of Liberty. What is the practical benefit to supporting Israel? Why do we do it?

To clarify, I am asking the reason the United States does this, not whether it is morally right or justified. This is neither subjective nor a matter of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This surely goes back to the days of the creation of Israel, the number of American Jews who were part of that, and the number who emigrated there. It was a large number. Those people and their descendants would still have a lot of personal and financial connections with the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Radioactivemutant -- before 1967, the U.S. supported Israel in limited ways, but was very careful to avoid any appearance of a U.S.-Israel military alliance (and was very strongly opposed to the U.K.-France-Israel military actions in the 1956 Suez Crisis). However, in 1967, the combination of loose inflammatory reckless wannabe-genocidal throw-the-Jews-into-the-sea rhetoric by many Arabs, bombastic grandiose military threats and flirtations with the Soviets by Arab leaders, and the pathetic ignominious Arab battlefield performance when the fighting actually started, created an overall extremely negative opinion of middle-eastern Arabs in the United States -- and from that time forward there was an open U.S.-Israeli military alliance. In any case Osama bin Laden personally barely cared about Israel at all. He sometimes uttered pro forma anti-Israeli rhetoric expected of someone in his position, but Israel was not a significant motivating factor for why he took up terrorism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * An influential segment of the United States population supports Israel for a variety of reasons, mainly religious. See Israel lobby in the United States. In addition, US-Israel relations are influenced by strategic thinkers who value Israel as a military ally and bridgehead in a region whose oil and gas resources are crucial to the global economy. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The entire Middle East region is a valuable piece of real estate, as an oily bridge between continents, wide open for various development. If a state were (hypothetically, of course) trying to conquer the world, it would want it before facing China. Sometimes it would need a little help from its friends in the area. Friends cost money. Making jihadists mad makes them buy weapons, which lets states who sell weapons pay their friends (often in weapons). The concept of universal liberty, like all Americanism, is imaginary. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Imaginary" compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Black sites. Actual apple pie. Even Kurt Angle (he's damn true). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My answer: Israel is a democracy. But here's a source that answers the question more fully: --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it denies the vote to substantial parts of the population under its effective control, it is disputable whether Israel is a democracy. (See these sources, among many others. ) However, democracy is not a prerequisite for forming an alliance with the United States. Marco polo (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant concept is Herrenvolk democracy. However, few realistic people with a detailed knowledge of the situation would (however much they blame Israel for many other things) blame Israel for not giving voting rights to a population, a large percentage of which wants to destroy Israel by means of force and violence.  In any case, when Israel offered Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem the right to vote in Jerusalem municipal elections only (without taking up Israeli citizenship or prejudicing larger issues), extremely few East Jerusalem residents accepted.  The "one-state solution" actually kind of expired around 1933, when the first Arab state to be given independence in modern times celebrated its independence by massacring a religious minority -- something that the Jews of the British Palestine Mandate paid close attention to in 1933, resolving to never allow themselves to be placed in a similar situation... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Marco Polo, see Athenian democracy; if we question whether Israel be democratic because it "denies the vote to substantial parts of the population under its effective control", we should question whether democracy was democratic. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Democracy isn't important to this question. Like Marco says above, allies can take any form of government. America's current coalition against the Islamic State, for instance, has three kingdoms and whatever a federal presidential absolute monarchy or unitary parliametary absolute monarchy is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * One practical benefit to the US is a way to develop and test out new weapons and defense technology, since Israel is always in a state of war or near war. For example, Israel was the first to develop UAVs, then the US saw it was practical and poured lots of money into doing the same.  Or, in the case of anti-missile missiles, the US developed the Patriot missile, but found them to be of limited value after using them in Israel to defend against Saddam during the Second Gulf War.  Israel then developed the Iron Dome system, which seems to be more effective.  The US may copy key aspects of that the set up their own technologies.  Israeli technology and procedures to prevent it's passenger planes from being blown up might also be of interest in the US.


 * Now, as for US opinion, I don't think many think that "if we only let the Arabs massacre all the Jews we would be safe". First, there's the doubt that the US would be safe.  Indeed, once all the Jews had been killed, the assumption in the US is that many of those terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, etc., would then target the West.  And, even if Americans believed that throwing Israel under the bus would protect them, I don't think many would think it was right to do so.


 * Now, the next question is probably why the US population has such a negative view of Palestinians and Arabs in general. A previous poster mentioned events around the 1967 war, but there have been many incidents since, such as the 1972 Munich Olympics PLO massacre of Israeli athletes, the Achille Lauro hijacking, Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate the 911 attacks, etc., not to mention more recent Arab terrorist groups like ISIL.  Now I'm sure most Palestinians and Arabs are peaceful (I have a Palestinian friend myself), but terrorism committed by Palestinians and Arabs just doesn't leave that impression in the US.  And yes, Israel has done some terrible things, but very few of those have targeted Americans, so they are not seen as a threat in the same way.  As I've said before, had Palestine taken Gandhi's approach instead of resorting to terrorism, they would have gotten the US on their side and won independence long ago.  In simplest terms, attacking an enemy by military means which you can't possibly defeat by military means is idiotic.  StuRat (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you underestimate the Patriot system. Just yesterday Israel shot down a Syrian jet with one. They are also deployed in Turkey. Iron Dome is a low cost system to shoot down cheap targets. The U.S. is developing lasers for that role. Rmhermen (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the US military learned from it's use defending against SCUDs and were able to upgrade it to be more effective. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If a nation needs to kowtow to a bigger one to gain nominal independence, that's dependence. It's why terrorists are also called "freedom fighters". Having freedom handed to you with a list of conditions isn't winning, it's compromising. If Palestine did that from the start, it would all be called Israel today, and America wouldn't know to care. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Refraining from murdering American citizens isn't "kowtowing". Had the American colonists kidnapped and murdered French citizens in an attempt to get France to support it in the American Revolution, the French would not have supported the colonies, and there would be no USA today.  The colonists needed French military support to win, and sent Ben Franklin to charm the French, instead. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not killing Americans would be one condition, of many. Buying American and staging American puppet show elections would likely be on the invoice, too. Though if Palestine had bowed to Israel at the time, it'd have remained a regional and (temporarily) British problem. Americans are terrorist targets because of America's willfull political involvement, which as noted above, has strong US public support since '67. So long as Arabs are popular Hollywood/New York heels, politicians will press for more pro-Israel legislation, regardless of that legislation's effect on the ground (killing voters from across the spectrum).


 * As for winning freedom, you probably can't pick a worse example than the USA, at least financially. Luckily (for some), strong allies and a zealous jealousy come in handy for not worrying about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My example was about how to win independence, in this case from England. There can be no doubt that this was accomplished, with French help.  Your opinion of the USA today is completely irrelevant to that point. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nominal independence. Still took nearly two centuries to get to the point they are, above creditors. Having a shitload of arable land after the fact sure helped. Palestine doesn't have that advantage. It's not called a Strip for nothing. America has likely offered many more peace deals than the public's even aware of, and they haven't sold. The US and Israel together are more analogous to England than France. Hezbollah is their France. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * InedibleHulk -- Your comments of "22:40, September 24, 2014" are unfortunately quite incorrect in the form in which they were expressed there. If the Arabs had agreed to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, then they would have had a UN-backed state (effectively guaranteed by the great powers of the day), a state which would have encompassed much more land than the later West Bank + Gaza Strip, and which would have left Israel within militarily-indefensible borders.  Unfortunately, the Arabs couldn't agree to any such plan because they regarded any form of Jewish sovereignty on any territory (no matter how small) as an offense to their dignity and a blot on their honor which had to be washed away with blood.  Therefore they preferred to roll the dice on the outcome of war instead -- and lost.  That started a long-term pattern in which the Arabs were interested in the previous compromise only after they had already thrown it away.  In 1947-1948, the Arabs contemptuously spurned and scorned the 1947 partition plan borders -- but as soon as the armistice lines were finalized in 1949, then the partition plan borders started looking good.  In 1949-1967, the Arabs loftily rejected the 1949 armistice lines as having any lasting force or legal status -- but as soon as the 1967 war occurred, then the 1949 armistice lines started looking good.  With the early 2000s "intifada", the Arabs pretty much eliminated any possibility of relatively open borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state, thereby guaranteeing that such borders would be rigorously controlled and fortified -- whereupon the previous prospect of relatively open borders started looking good.  That's what Abba Eban called "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" -- the Arabs lost a lot more through rigid and inflexible political maximalism (never being able to accept any intermediate pragmatic settlement which fell short in any way with respect to their ultimate grand visions and aspirations) than from alleged excessive compromising... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lost more through inflexibility because they did more that way. If they'd bent over instead, that 1947 parcel does look pretty nice, in hindsight. But how long would those borders last? It'd be a whole new storyline, made even more unpredictable by their new tendency toward wishy-washiness. I don't always like what I've heard from that camp, but they shoot relatively straight and stick to their guns. Figuratively, I mean. No question which side has literally done it better.
 * It's created an independent Palestinian spirit, and while they can't build a city on that or put it up as collateral, it still counts for something. Whatever that something looks like will also be clearer in hindsight. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't possess an alternative-timeline crystal ball, but if the 1947 plan had been implemented, then the Arabs would have been much better off in most respects than their actual situation in 1949 after rejecting the plan. (Of course, that raises the issue of who would have been the leader of such an Arab state -- the international community would have been unlikely to accept Nazi-collaborating war criminal Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, and he would have taken violent exception to anyone who was not his toadying lackey and flunky.)  Meanwhile, what you consider the "Palestinian spirit", others may see as a toxic mixture of death-worship (i.e. "baby suicide bomber") and "immoralism" (refusal to condemn any action by one's own side, no matter how loathesome and vile, as seen in glorification of Dalal Mughrabi etc. etc. etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be war without one side seeing the other as evil. That would stay the same, but yeah, without a crystal ball (or cup), hard to say what else would. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Palestinians remind me of the faction in Japan, after the atomic bombs were dropped, which still didn't want to surrender. They realized this would mean the total destruction of Japan, but considered that to be preferable to surrender.  Fortunately, the Emperor was allowed to "break the tie", and he chose surrender. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As Pamela Geller quotes, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." Apparently American Zionism is Ayan Rand's fault.  See video at bottom of the anti-Ayan Rand blog for her own words. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's something to the basic sentiment behind the quote -- but unfortunately the quote in that form sounds like something that a 1950s colonialist would say, and I really don't see how a relentless and shameless attention-seeker like Pamela Geller, who often seems to be careless with facts and truth, is qualified to offer such general guidance... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Rand said basically the same thing on many occasions; Geller's poster is one of the formulations, and the jihadist blogger provides a link to a rather sloppy statement on Donahue by Ayan. There are two issues here, the politco-moral one, on which Rand is spot on, and the anthropological one, where Rand is rather embarrassingly inaccurate. Geller has nothing to do with that. Geller is simply of interest because, unlike Ayan, she didn't die in 1982, and that she has won every legal suit to which she's been party, such as the one forcing the NYC Transit system to accept her paid advertising of the quote by Ayan. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There will be peace in the middle east when the citizenry gets tired of perpetual war. Evidently they are nowhere near that point yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Golda Meir supposedly once said that peace will come when the Arabs finally decide that they love their own children more than they hate the Jews. Of course, that won't do anything about Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Loving your children means supporting them and defending them. If the children dream of destroying the Jews and reclaiming their homeland, however silly a notion, a loving parent must weigh their happiness against the risk. If love was all about restriction, nobody would send their sons and daughters to defend anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you have constructed an elaborate scenario in your own mind (angry youth vs. tired elders) which has nothing to do with what she was trying to say. It could be rephrased as -- which is more important for the Arabs, either gaining pragmatic concrete practical benefits for themselves, or trying to take things away from the Jews?  At several key moments of history, the Arabs behaved as if trying to take things away from the Jews was more important than gaining things for themselves (i.e. "I refuse to accept half a loaf of bread if this means that my enemy will receive any bread at all"), and as a result they ended up with the worst of both worlds -- they neither gained things for themselves nor took things away from the Jews.  It would be nice if they could finally learn from such history and adjust their behavior accordingly... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the scenario you see in my head is a bit more elaborate than mine. The kids aren't against their parents in what I'm talking about, and not necessarily driven by anger. Many reasons to fight. Adventure, money, hopelessness, peer pressure. Walter Gretzky was pretty tired a lot of nights helping his kid beat the odds. Not trying to trivialize war by comparison, but it's the same underlying sort of loving support I mean.


 * My "worst of both worlds" view might be more complex than yours. I see a third world, where people eat staler bread, and taste how they paid for it selling the dream of better bread their parents had, before the friendly neighbourhood baker killed them. They haven't ended up with that on their plate either, which must feel like a plus for them, or they'd have settled for less already. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the Humanities Desk or the Entertainment Desk? Contact Basemetal   here  15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether you consider the perpetual warfare in the middle east to be "entertainment". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No. But what I do find entertaining is that this discussion was promptly closed, whereas the present discussion, which is essentially a Usenet level series of rants, that should have no place at any Wikipedia Reference Desk keeps merrily going and going and going, and no admin seems to worry about doing anything about it. Seriously, does it look like the OP genuinely came to the Wikipedia Reference Desk to have this neutral, completely unloaded, innocent question answered, because poor him (or her) happened to be in need of information? All of the above is at best a series of opinions, not answers to a genuine request for information. Contact Basemetal   here  18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll admit a bit of opinionated ranting, but I didn't do it merrily. You're right though, this could use more directly relevant, referenced answers. Here are a few reasons the partnership was recently strengthened on paper. And here are some recent reasons that partnership doesn't see Palestine as a viable partner. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This question seems more factually answerable than does that loaded question about western civilization. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

arabic and persian names
Zohreh is Persian version of Arabic Zahrah and Yassaman is Persian for Yasmin. Is there a website that shows the list of Arabic names, both boys and girls with their Persian counterparts? Also, is there a list of Persian names based on cities (Shirazi), tribe (e.g. Ahmadinejad) or based on Arabic names (e.g. Hussaini, Hassani, Karimi, Hamidi)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.110 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In the original Arabic script, I think that names of Arabic origin are generally spelled the same in both Arabic and Persian (except of course that Persian orthography does not use the letter ة ). In Latin alphabet transcription, it will greatly depend on the particular transcription of Arabic and transcription of Persian which are used... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Atimia
I quote the Atimia article:"Failure to abide by atimia was seen as an attack on the power of the people, represented by the courts that had imposed it. Failing to comply with atimia could lead to the death penalty."Atimia was deprivation of civil rights, not a command that you could disobey, unlike a fine that you could not-pay, or a prison sentence that you could escape. How could you fail to comply with it? If I'm classified as a non-voter and fail to comply, I'm not given a ballot when I request one at the voting booth, I don't get called for jury duty, (if Athenian) the judges ignore me if I try to file a lawsuit, etc., but it's not as if I'm (modern day) driving on a suspended license or possessing a firearm under disability. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The command one could disobey would be to refrain from partaking in assemblies and voting. E.g. if a man was ruled atimos, but later attended an assembly, this would be a violation of hist disenfranchisement. I have no prior knowledge of the topic, that's just my reading of the article. It could probably be phrased better. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic of discussion: World Recycle
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please kindly provide me the links related to the 'world recycle' topic, from science and religion, along with a brief knowledge in simple terms. Kind regards, (Russell.mo (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "world recycle". If you mean the process of reusing manufactured goods, there is an organization called the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association; and more generally the Wikipedia article titled Recycling covers some of the basics.  Perhaps something like Earth Day, which is a worldwide observance of environmental concerns, like recycling, may be more to your needs here.  Otherwise, if I am very far off target, can you elaborate on what you are looking for?  -- Jayron  32  22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In order to recycle a world, you must deploy the Genesis Device. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting information on 'world recycle', basic 'scientific & religious' possession of knowledge: The world tilts upside down apparently every 3,600 years, scientists disputes the idea, mythologies/ancient histories define otherwise. The world apparently does tilt upside down, I require extensive information and elaboration in simple terms... (Russell.mo (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Scientists say it occurs over many years during its rotation, definitely not every 3,600 years and definitely not in 30 minutes when the so called planet 'nibiru' appears. Note that some say planet 'nibiru' comes near Earth/Mars, some say near Pluto, and this is the only time when all the planet aligns, when truly the planets align every, in between a few years...
 * Prophet Muhammad from Islam religion said, "Judgement Day will be the Day when the Sun seen rising from the opposite way".
 * In ancient Egyptian stories, apparently they've evidence, well according to human knowledge, the world tilted upside down twice/The Sun rose the opposite way twice...


 * See Fringe science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The earth itself does not "flip". There's absolutely zero evidence that it ever has.  However, the process of Geomagnetic reversal is well documented.  For reasons that are not entirely well understood, at semi-regular intervals the Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity.  Stories from religious texts notwithstanding, however, there is no feasible means by which the Earth could be made to physically flip, alter its rotation, etc. etc.  Such stories are probably best understood for their allegorical or metaphorical truth than for any reliable reporting of any actual such event.  -- Jayron  32  00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We do have a good article on the Nibiru cataclysm, which should get you started. --Mark viking (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If the Earth had no moon it would be unstable on its axis and could flip. See Uranus.  As it is, until the moon escapes earth orbit (at which time the earth day will be months long) there will be no flipping, just wobble. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a topic I read in Wikipedia article that it occurs, what I’m not sure of now is whether it was a hypothesis or postulation; I can’t recall the name of the article(s) now either.

Anyways, if the Earth doesn't tilt, how do you explain the ‘great flood’ what occurred several times during the history of mankind? I assume this event recycles some souls of Earth regardless, can it or may be classified/called one of the events of Armageddon? I also assumed this 'great flood' issue occurs primarily when the Earth begins its so called slow movement reversal back to its square one position, during the first 30 minutes, when it starts to reverse due to its bounce back movement, what you are disputing due to insufficient scientific records?

In regards to 'continental drift', apparently it’s contracting, over the several years the continents were conjoining slowly not distancing from each other, not visible yet but may be in the near future..., what occurred so far according to the fringe science or scientific knowledge. Pangaea is the closest resemblance to a discussion of the topic and I am not sure whether pangaea state will reoccur in between or thereafter 4.5 billion years... If so where will it be situated?

Extinction events of ‘human’ race are likely to occur until the beginning of 4.5 billion years’ time guys, disregarding the various assumptions made so far of course which are likely as I am sure that we dumb humans who tend to act smart, or some of us who are in the position of power who tend to think we human beings are dumb enough who don’t require the knowledge of alien life or the advancements of human beings achieved in technology and so on, will come up with something for the near future…

Regarding the topic of discussion and, I have read through the Nibiru cataclysm a long time ago, it provides, postulates, theory, hypothesis, explanations, methods, interpretations, conclusions, etc, no definitive answers and no evidences. Is there any way I could find out about planet ‘Nibiru’ and of its moons and of its orbital sequencing period and so on? Worldwide internet web is filled with this information but nothing in Wikipedia. Note that NASA did not wish to provide information but gave the benefit of the doubt publicly after full penetration and assured no cataclysmic events will occur any time soon though to reminisce on what occured so far and might occur, as elaborated in wikipedia article(s). A reliable source I require on Planet Nibiru topic, would be helpful. And how come Wikipedia doesn't have information about Planet Nibiru and of its moons? Does Wikipedia have anything relative to it?

Extrapolating from the trend:

The Earth and the moon distancing each other, may provide the explanation of what prophet Muhammad said in regards to when Dajjal appears i.e., one day will feel like a month or year and so on, assuming that it will occur near the beginning of 4.5 billion years timeline, for beginning destruction of the sun, still doesn't clarify the 'world recycle' point, except the great flood issue which can be linked to the world tilting upside down or linking to planet nibiru cataclysmic event. Above all no concrete evidence neither a concrete statement on planet ‘nibiru’ or ‘great flood’ issue, except the hypothesis it occurs and will reoccur. another 'world recycle' subject to include is 'Judgement Day', this subject has two point one what may occur during the end of time i.e., end or the beginning of 4.5 billion years, and the other, usually a crisis that brings an end to current reality and ushers in a new way of living, thinking, or being. This crisis may take the form of the intervention of a deity in history, a war, a change in the environment, or the reaching of a new level of consciousness, as defined in eschatology.

Any idea(s) on how the souls will recycle on earth, how the new lands will arrive covering the old, when does a celestial being appear. apperantly a celestial being means a person in the form of a planet God, what does this mean?... Does the celestial being recycle the world, by creating new followers and so on...?

Apparently the bible describes the world recycling event, planet tilting upside down, I have seen it in Youtube once. true or false? -- 10:10, 25 September 2014 Russell.mo


 * It is best not to take ancient religious texts literally. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The soul cycles through the earth like our bodies do, decomposing and recomposing. What parts aren't eaten turn to dust, what parts are eaten and unused turn to shit. Shit and dust turn to soil, which covers the old land. What parts were eaten and used are buried in this new land when they die, and the beat goes on. The celestial being is the sun, feeding the plants in the soil and warming the people to harvest them. When the light leaves for a while, we sleep. When it leaves forever, we die forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

What is the thing that makes this company's service so un-doable by others?
Reading and listening to this article about a startup called Stripe, it sounds like they provide the backend of, for instance, the code of the "buy" button on a business's website, or that the merchandiser's buy button calls Stripe's code for that merchandiser's account. What then is the nature of the genius that they have that any merchandise business can't figure out themselves such that they opt instead to buy Stripe's services? Is it that they got access to banking institutions' APIs? What? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have an article on them - Stripe (company). See also Payment service provider for the general business model.  To summarize, for some companies, it's cheaper to use such a service provider than to set up your own merchant account with the banks for credit-card payments.  The risk of the transaction failing is also taken by the PSP rather than by the client company. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there still a place in modern philosophy for qualitative or non-mathematical philosophy?
Modern philosophy seems to have an inclination to mathematics and other scientific disciplines. Even moral philosophy is being "mathematized". Some peer-reviewed articles on the mere addition paradox, for example, utilized complex mathematical concepts just to prove or disprove the paradox. So, is there still a place in modern philosophy for "qualitative philosophers"? What if a philosophy major is not interested in delving in logic, math or anything in between? -- 23:50, 24 September 2014 119.95.223.218


 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say modern philosophy is heavily dependent on math, unless you mean logic. As far a philosophy which ignores logic and science, that sounds more like religion, to me.  Eastern religions, in particular, tend to be more philosophical than worry about the details of what fictional deity did what.  Try studying Zen Buddhism. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh? What about Aristotelian logic that influenced St. Thomas Aquinas greatly? Oh, and by the way, Buddhists can be just as devotional as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In Buddhism, the Bodhisattva and buddhas are highly revered. Guanyin Boddhisattva is a well-known boddhisattva in many Far Eastern cultures, both in religious life and popular culture. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is why I specified Zen rather than just Buddhism in General. According to our article "Zen emphasizes insight into Buddha-nature and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. As such, it de-emphasizes mere knowledge of sutras and doctrine and favors direct understanding through zazen and interaction with an accomplished teacher."  So, sounds like philosophy without much math, science, or religion. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of "science" and "religion". Zen Buddhism, a form of Mahayana Buddhism, also has bodhisattvas. These bodhisattvas are usually given much devotion. I don't see the point you're making when you say that Buddhism is merely "philosophical". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Early Buddhist teachings have been loosely called "atheistic" by some (though probably "non-theistic would be more accurate). There's something on this in God in Buddhism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There will always be a significant place for verbal arguments and non-formal methods in modern philosophy. Conceptual analysis is symbol agnostic. But those who are fluent in more than one symbolic language may go much further and much faster than those not so well equipped mentally. Philosophy is a ferociously competitive game.


 * (Note, I confine my remarks to the analytic tradition in contemporary philosophy. Also, I was in your shoes until I was converted, so please forgive the proselytizing.)


 * Moral philosophy, to use your example, and even aesthetics, is all about possible worlds - the domain of modal logic. The prerequisite for understanding modal logic is first order (symbolic) logic.


 * Also, a philosophy major still needs coursework in formal logic (beyond the introductory level course for non-majors) to graduate with even a B.A. in philosophy.


 * You would be well advised to peruse the multi-faceted subjects of formal methods from several angles before succumbing to voluntary formal illiteracy, which would be a serious handicap to any philosophy major who might entertain (as many do) the dream of someday, somehow teaching at the university level. Guess what philosophy graduate assistants teach? Introductory logic.


 * I recommend playing around with some versions of formal methods that may overcome your apparent distaste for mathematical symbolism. The Santa Fe Institute is once again (starting September 29) offering their totally free and popular Complexity: An Introduction online course. Taught by the the author of the best book on the subject (which cuts across most others) and using nothing but free readings and the open source graphic modeling tool used by professors and junior high school kids alike, NetLogo. No commitment needed: just follow along and play around with the suggested software experiments - you'll pick up a lot that you wouldn't imagine is "math" but is.


 * Take any branch of value theory you like and put one or more sets of graphical competitors to work in a constrained environment. Assign simple rules and starting points. Fiddle around. Believe it or not, your experimentation could result in a philosophy thesis, or definitively falsify the viability of another. Importantly, the visual exploration might warm you up for more exploration of formal methods, why they are so popular and powerful.


 * Sets and Relations. Infinity. Trees and Networks. Modal Semantics. Finite State Machines. Utilitarian Calculi. All that and more, brought down to earth in lower case, contextualized for undergraduates, and expertly taught, in Eric Steinhart's gift to the study of philosophy, More Precisely: The Math You Need to Do Philosophy (Amazon). Significant sampling on Google Books. Author's materials on book website. And David Papineau's Philosophical Devices: Proofs, Probabilities, Possibilities, and Sets is another invaluable book that helps remove the sting from learning stunningly powerful, absolutely basic and standard, philosophical technique. More comprehensive scope, but both have unique virtues. Buy both, read, study, inwardly digest.


 * Work through these short books well-crafted exercises for your mind and work out your understandable distaste for formal methods and you'll be well on your way to mastery, wherever your philosophic interests take you. Good luck! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are certain philosophers who concern themselves with page long proofs that one plus one makes two (Bertram Scudder) and others who think that the fact that they can formulate a sentence that implies a contradiction in their minds (Goedel) that they exist in reality or somehow disprove some claim (when every contradiction proves every claim.) But politics, ethics, and aesthetics have nothing to do with math, they surpass or emerge from it at least a few levels higher than chemistry.


 * Cosmology is a science, not a branch of philosophy, so again, the fact that it is mathematico-scientifical is an elephant. Epistemology is broader than math, since it includes qualia as well as quantity.  Logic is similar to, and applies to algebra, but again, it deals with qualitative statements that are outside math.  Perhaps I miss your point, but the broad answer to your question as posted is no. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)