Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 March 24

= March 24 =

Foot fetishism semiotics articles journals
Aren't there any articles or texts that deals with foot fetishism as a symbol or has symbolism? Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You already asked this. AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I know asked this already but unfortunately, I didn't get my answer. Instead, I got a joke. Please answer my question. Thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes you think any of us are any more knowledge about foot fetishism now than when you previously asked about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Donmust90 -- I think it's reasonably well-established that the collective wisdom of the Humanities Ref. Desk regulars is not able to answer the question in the way you want it answered, so there's little point in re-asking the question. What you really need at this point is help from a librarian who can guide you to a suitable scholarly database, and tell you how to search it.  Try your nearest University library... AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It might help if, instead of just asking again, you attempted to explain what you're trying to understand and/or what you've already found. Semiotics has many shades of meaning, but it seems to generally refer to consciously decided symbolism: "I'm going to wear this because it will make me look hire-able or attractive or feminine, etc." but sexual fetishism is seemingly more subconscious than that, particularly in this case where the fetishism is more in the mind of the observer than the wearer. Thus, it's a little unclear to us what approach you're really going for. The more usual school used to understand this stuff is psychology, in which case, your studies would start with topics like sexology and sexual fetishism. Going down this route finds you some interesting pieces, such as this (non-peer-reviewed) article. The book Cultures of Fetishism by Louise Kaplan also appears directly related and is available via Google books. Peer-reviewed journals on the subject can be found via Google Scholar (which, for some reason, Google keeps well-hidden). Quick example search here.
 * But these are mostly about the psychology involved. If this isn't what you're looking for, then explaining how you feel semiotics could be applied might help us understand where you're coming from. Matt Deres (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

How can an international company like Toys R Us go bankrupt?
How can an international company, a company that has multiple locations, go bankrupt? Is every location losing money? Is the decision based on the average income from all the stores combined? How do multiple-location stores work? By the way, is there an actual term for the type of business that has multiple locations but with the same brand name? In ancient times, people probably had one family business, and that's it. How did the idea of a multiple-location business evolve? SSS (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a USA Today article explaining why. In short:
 * the company itself was in enough debt that it didn't really matter how much any (or even all) of their stores were making.
 * they filed for bankruptcy just before the holiday shopping season, causing suppliers to withdraw, making their holiday sales worse.
 * Amazon, Walmart, and Target responded to Toys R Us's bankruptcy filing by poaching Toys R Us's suppliers and slashing prices well below what Toys R Us could afford, making holiday sales even worse.
 * Toys R Us hoped that maybe they would be able to rely shafting selling at a higher profit margin to last minute shoppers who were afraid that online shipping would take too long. Those last-minute shoppers didn't show up.
 * Toy sales have been getting lower anyway.
 * Also, not every location needs to be losing money, there just needs to be enough stores losing money that the remaining ones can't make enough money to keep the brand afloat.
 * There's a few similar models where a large brand has a bunch of stores all over the place. Chain store, Franchise, and Corporation are the most immediately relevant articles.
 * Also, as far back as the Roman empire, Guilds were a significant economic factor, holding roles that are now held by corporations and labor unions. IIRC, these were sometimes called "companies,"  Merchantilism and the Industrial Revolution gave rise to modern Capitalism, which loosened (but did not destroy) the power of the guilds, and made other types of companies profitable.  This transition was extremely complex, and I'm not sure we have a really good article that lays it out plainly.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Leveraged buyouts often spell doom when business won't get much better, even if it's still very good (by pre-buyout standards). Here's a video. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, something that you'd think might get more attention, but the press seems to think people are dumb and easily bored (maybe they're right), so they usually boil it down to "the company had lots of debt". Toys R Us was purchased by a private equity firm in a leveraged buyout. What does this involve? The buyer buys the company with borrowed money. The collateral for the loan is the purchased company. In other words, they buy the company and then make the purchased company pay for itself being bought. Usually, the new owners also charge the company large management fees. For the buyers, it's mostly win-win: if the company improves, they can sell it off at a profit; if it fails, they still get paid their fees and they're not on the hook for anything. These types of transactions are sometimes criticized. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaterals and property ownership
I just checked the Investopedia about a brief mentioning of a collateral. My understanding is that the buyer knows he can't afford the property, so he borrows money from a moneylender or bank to buy the property. The property becomes a collateral. What that means is, the buyer has to pay back the loan gradually. If he successfully pays everything off, then the property becomes fully his, and he owes no one money. If he fails to pay the property off, then the moneylender will take the property in a process called foreclosure. If that property is the person's permanent home, then the person becomes homeless and may have to live in a car. And if the person has any kids, then the kids may be kicked out of the public school because of not living in the school district and paying property taxes? Now, the moneylender takes the house and tries to put it on the market to repay the loan and make a profit. Is my understanding correct?

Also, is it possible to bypass the moneylender by buying the property with one's own money instead of on borrowed money? If one has to borrow money for whatever reason, then what is a safe amount to borrow in respect to the amount of income one receives as a household to be able to pay off the borrowed money as soon as possible? Can anybody explain the history of using collaterals to pay a debt? SSS (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You have it about right. Obviously the details will differ in the various jurisdictions around the world.  You might like to read our Mortgage, Collateral, Foreclosure articles.  I haven't heard about kids being kicked out of school before, but it might follow.
 * I'm not aware of a mortgage being compulsory anywhere, so yes, you can always buy a property with your own money if you have it. The "safe" amount to borrow will depend on your income and the current loan interest rate.  No one on Wikipedia is qualified to give you any more financial advice than that.  Rojomoke (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW I've reduced the header level of your question, so it's not displayed as a subsection of the previous one. Rojomoke (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read foreclosure in particular as suggested by Rojomoke. In a number of jurisdictions, the way the process works the lender can't simply profit off the sale if the house, they can only make back what they are owed. If there is any 'profit' after repaying the lender (i.e. equity) and any penalty interest, fees, taxes or rates etc; this belongs to the borrower. Of course this also means the lender has no need for a process that makes any more money from the sale than what they need to ensure get all the money they would expect i.e. doesn't care if the house could have fetched a higher price. (This is one of the reasons property investors and speculators sometimes keep an eye out for foreclosure sales.) Note it is likewise possible in a number of jurisdictions (but one doesn't automatically follow the other) that the borrower is still responsible if the sale of the house doesn't fully cover all those, so they are still in debt. (This is particularly common where there is a house price crash so houses are selling for significantly less than what they were purchased for.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed your possibly confusing typo. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also in additions to Rojomoke's point about school districts, it obviously doesn't have to always follow that the person ends up homeless and living in their car. People may move back in with their parents, or get some sort of social subsidised housing or in some cases just rent a house normally etc. But by the same token, even if the local laws do allow the children to stay in their school, if it's now far away enough it may be difficult for the child to continue at it. Or foreclosure article has numerous problems still it does discuss all these (e.g. it has info on statistics post-foreclosure and 'ending up homeless living in car doesn't even seem to be discussed). Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm studying mortgage broking, though a of yet, I am not properly qualified. Generally, if you're the borrower, about to "go delinquent" on a mortgage you can no longer afford, (e.g. you lost your job) you want to sell the property yourself, not wait until the bank forecloses. As Nil Einne says, the bank is not interested in selling the property for a price higher than recouping its loan. The borrower will generally get a higher value by selling the property himself, repaying the outstanding mortgage, and pocketing the remainder.
 * All the above assumes "positive equity", where the amount of the loan outstanding is less than the current value of the property. If the loan is a Non-recourse loan, and the property is worth less than the amount outstanding on the mortgage, you can just hand the property back to the lender and walk away! In the 2008 financial crisis many banks had extended thousands of such loans, and the borrowers simply mailed the keys back to the bank and vacated the now-nearly-worthless property. Eliyohub (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesus teaching in the Synagogues
In reading through the New Testament, there are many references to Jesus teaching in various Synagogues throughout Judea. In the various churches that I have attended, a person can only speak/teach if invited to do so (as I have only been to one Synagogue, I don't know if it is different there). There is no record of him receiving formal teachings from an "accredited" person/school (though, in my mind, it would make sense that Jesus' so called "missing years" (age 12 to 30) were spent in study of the Scriptures; it is recorded that when he was 12, he debated the teachers in the Synagogue and may thus have been considered a protégé'). Also, the Pharisees do not seem to point out a lack of formal education, so he must have some authority to teach. So, where did Jesus get his authority to teach/preach (especially such radical ideas as he presented and promoted)? 76.71.157.121 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, diplomas, certification, and the like really weren't a thing. The content and presentation generally would have been the main thing.
 * Even when universities started to become a thing in the middle ages, the standard for (the equivalent to) a bachelor's degree was more or less "My teacher thinks I'm smart." Even then, who you studied under could matter more than that.  "I studied under Avicenna (but do not have a doctorate)" could get you a career in medicine more easily than "I have a doctorate in medicine (from some university that's you're only just aware is real)."
 * Becoming a master craftsman in a Guild was probably one of the most rigorous tests, and that was still "make something that no one can point out serious issues with and answer whatever questions the test-givers can spontaneously think to demonstrate competency in the job." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And being able to pass for a stereotypical Persian physician of the time Avicenna's students were your age and time traveling there undetected with contemporary medical kit after completing your family medicine fellowship will earn you more money than a doctorate who studied under Avicenna. Apparently ether can be made from quickly distilling the product of strong acid (11th century vitriol?) and ethanol. If there's a not dangerous way to make ether with 11th century materials and a moonshine still then you could offer the only truly painless surgery.. Get vaccinated for everything first and pick your location wisely, not too near Persia and not too far, and a location that puts you at least risk of dying or being captured. Not right before a siege obviously. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Early synagogues were quite different from modern ones. See The Jewish Synagogue and the Relation of Jesus to It, Edwin Knox Mitchell, The Biblical World Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1900): "The insistence of the scribes that the whole people should know the law made each man theoretically competent to teach, to preach, and to lead the worship of the congregation. And this liberty and privilege seems never to have been seriously abridged" (p. 12). Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] Since there is virtually no contemporary documentary evidence whatsoever relating to Ye'shua ben Yussuf (which might have survived if only the Roman destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem in CE 70 had not occurred), and the generation-later recollections and imaginative reconstructions resulting in the subsequently selected and edited Gospels did not think to mention such matters, expecting a definitive affirmation of his theological credentials would be optimistic.
 * We may choose to deduce from those less-than-reliable accounts and from contemporary sources on Jewish religion and society (such as Josephus and the Talmud) that, as you say, he did teach and preach in and outside synagogues, he was addressed as Rabbi without noticeable demur, and that his message lay within the (in modern terms) "liberal" wing of Pharisaic thought, hence the support for him by some Pharisees and the opposition of their political and theological enemies the Sadduces still attested in the Synoptic Gospels*.
 * We therefore have no specific reasons to doubt that he was recognised by his peers as a legitimate participant in religious activities and debate. It's possible that the known irregularity of his birth may have socially and/or technically disqualified him from some matters: somewhere I have a print of a paper arguing that he might have been unable to formally marry the aristocratic Mary of Magdala because his illegitimacy placed him beyond the 'two permitted degrees of separation' in the quasi-caste structure that (the paper proposes) existed in Jewish society of the time – unfortunately I don't have it to hand.
 * (* It has been argued that Ye'shua may have belonged to the "house" (school) of Hillel" – also that the various disparaging references to Pharisees in the Gospels were altered from ones to Sadducees because of Solon/Saul/Paul of Tarsus' associations with the latter. )
 * {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 2.218.14.51 -- I really don't know what you think the "'" in "Ye'shua"[sic] means. A broad IPA transcription of the probable 1st century A.D. pronunciation of this name would be [jeːʃuːʕ].  During his lifetime, the views of the majority of Judean Jews were strongly influenced by what Greek-language sources call "Pharisees" (though they didn't call themselves that), but Jesus strongly reacted against certain aspects of their teachings, and does not seem to have presented himself as an ordinary rabbinical scholar, and was not perceived by others as such. AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point the Sadducees included most of the High Priests of Israel, several hereditary lines of priests, and members of the upper class and the wealthy in Judea: "the upper social and economic echelon of Judean society". They also had partial control over the Second Temple, and were charged with its maintenance. "The religious responsibilities of the Sadducees included the maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. Their high social status was reinforced by their priestly responsibilities, as mandated in the Torah. The priests were responsible for performing sacrifices at the Temple, the primary method of worship in ancient Israel. This included presiding over sacrifices during the three festivals of pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Their religious beliefs and social status were mutually reinforcing, as the priesthood often represented the highest class in Judean society. However, Sadducees and the priests were not completely synonymous. Cohen points out that "not all priests, high priests, and aristocrats were Sadducees; many were Pharisees, and many were not members of any group at all."

Other tasks for the Sadducees involved local administration, diplomacy, collection of taxes and tributes, equipping and leading the local military, and acting as mediators for local disputes. Theologically, they reportedly differed by their contemporaries, since they did not believe in an afterlife. "According to Josephus, the Sadducees believed that: 1)There is no fate. 2) God does not commit evil. 3) Man has free will; "man has the free choice of good or evil". 4) The soul is not immortal; there is no afterlife. 5) There are no rewards or penalties after death."

The Sadducees "were an aristocratic, wealthy, and traditional elite within the hierarchy." The Pharisees did not believe in hereditary privileges, and most of them did not claim descent from any particular lineage. They emphasized education in Mosaic law and in oral tradition (which the Sadducees outright rejected), and thought it was more important than a formal rank in hierarchy or a good birth. They claimed that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer, according to the Pharisaic definition, is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest, in which marriage of the parents could not lawfully occur. The word is often, but incorrectly, translated as "illegitimate".) According to Josephus, the common people of Judea loved the Pharisees more than they did the Sadducees, and the Pharisees enjoyed the popular support for their cause. (Posing as the champion of the common man helps).

Theologically the Pharisees differed a lot from the Sadducees. They believed in an afterlife, and central to their practices were "prayer for the dead, judgment day, intercession of saints and merits of the martyrs." "According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people would be reincarnated and "pass into other bodies," while "the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment." The Apostle Paul, declared himself to be a Pharisee before his conversion to Christianity." Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Dimadick -- for the benefit of his Greek-speaking readership, Josephus tried to present the various Jewish factions somewhat in the form of different philosophical schools, which was something that Greeks and Romans would have been able to understand. However, it's exceedingly likely that most of the disputes between Sadducees and "Pharisees" were actually about the nature of legitimate Jewish religious authority, whether the written Jewish scriptures could be validly supplemented with an oral tradition, and disputes over the detailed interpretation of various provisions of Jewish religious-based law, rather than the quasi-"philosophical" issues mentioned by Josephus. AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)