Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 October 21

= October 21 =

Frederick the Great's pederasty?
Was Frederick the Great a pederast or merely gay? Serious question, BTW. It's clear that he was gay, but pederasty is a specific type of male gay actions/relationships. Futurist110 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there's an allusion to Frederick the Great being a pederast here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265981582_Voltaire's_Satire_on_Frederick_the_Great_Candide_his_Pothumous_Memoires_scarmendado_and_les_questions_sur_l'encyclopedie Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * At least in French, the term pédéraste has also been used in a less specific sense as a synonym for (a male) homosexuel. The French term homosexuel dates from the late 19th century, long after Voltaire. --Lambiam 11:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What about in English or in other languages? I'm wonder as to when the term "pederast" acquired its current, much more specific definition from a global perspective. Futurist110 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For a long time, there were no words in most European languages for homosexuality as an overall way of life and basic stable sexual orientation/identity (of course, there were also no words referring specifically to a heterosexual way of life and orientation/identity, since there was no need to coin a word such as "heterosexuality" until there was something else to compare and contrast it with). What did exist, were words for various disapproved sex acts, and those who indulged in such acts.  Some words (such as "sodomy") could refer both to disapproved homosexual sex and to certain disapproved heterosexual types of sex.  "Pederasty" is a term which originally referred to one very specific style of sexuality in Classical antiquity (a gay relationship with an age difference and fixed roles, where the older partner could have a wife simultaneously, while the younger partner might take a wife in future), but probably was often used more vaguely and euphemistically in later eras... AnonMoos (talk)


 * That makes sense. Anyway, though, would Frederick the Great have been a pederast by the modern definition of this term? Futurist110 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the etymology of the term. It would seem to be etymologically similar to "pedophile", although that's apparently a much more recent term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not link for that to our sister project? --Lambiam 22:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with EO? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's EO? Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Etymology Online. -- Jayron 32 11:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Read the links I posted and you'll know more. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it was meant in good faith, but phrases like "a pederast or merely gay" falsely imply a continuum where being gay is part of the pederast mindset. See here for why that's both troubling and incorrect. Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That link talks about pedophilia, though. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children whereas pederasty as an attraction to postpubescent children, no? So, different things, no?


 * As for pedophiles, Yes, it's entirely possible that many or even most male pedophiles who molest young boys are not gay but simply molest young boys as opposed to young girls because they are more likely to have access to young boys as opposed to young girls.


 * As for the legalization of homosexuality normalizing pedophilia (as per what some people have expressed concern about in the article that you linked to here), this won't happen because pedophilia actually harms other people whereas homosexuality (generally) does not. However, if one argues that homosexuality should be legal because it's cruel to deny people any harm-free outlet to express their sex drive for their entire lives and thus to condemn these people to a lifetime of sadness, misery, and depression, then one actually could make the same argument in favor of legalizing harm-free outlets to express a pedophilic sex drive--specifically things such as cartoon child porn, child sex dolls, and child sex robots--at least if legalizing these things is not going to put actual children at greater risk of abuse. After all, if it's cruel to deny gay people harm-free outlets to express their sex drive even though they won't have any other acceptable outlet to express their sex drive, why exactly should it be acceptable to deny people with pedophilic inclinations harm-free outlets to express their sex drive even though they won't have any other acceptable outlet to express their sex drive? Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you're playing devil's advocate here. If not, was this your real agenda in raising this question? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not playing devil's advocate here; I am simply pointing out that certain arguments that are used to justify legalizing homosexuality could likewise be used to justify legalizing harm-free sexual outlets for people with a pedophilic sexual inclination. Personally, I support both of these things; what about you?


 * But No, this wasn't actually my agenda in raising this question. Rather, my question here was as direct as I asked it--as in, did the homosexual sex that Frederick the Great engage in include having sex with young post-pubescent boys when he himself was an adult male? Indeed, my question could not have been any clearer on that front, could it? I mean, that is the contemporary definition of pederasty, is it not? Futurist110 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into it, and neither should you be. Everything that goes beyond the specific question you asked, and gets into more general discussions of definitions and rights and what have you, is just an invitation for a massive debate, and that's not for here. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Comment in regards to this topic on my talk page, if you want. Futurist110 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Museum attack
I had asked a question earlier today concerning the BBC report of an attack at a museum where up to 70 items were damaged in Berlin. Among the items damaged was the Throne of Satan. I would like to know what this item actually is and also why my question was deleted and why I was blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:6884:6200:D453:B0D7:E160:7942 (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From link "The Great Altar of Pergamon is considered to be one of the greatest surviving monuments from antiquity. Now located in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Germany, the altar is thought by many scholars to be the “throne of Satan,” referred to by the prophet John in the Book of Revelations. (Revelation 2:12–13)" Naturally, we have an article on Pergamon Museum, which has a photo of the altar. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the block; I was mistaking you for a persistent banned editor whose activities on these pages have certain similarities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the responses Team.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.105.98 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Special status of impeachment in US Senate
Are impeachment proceedings somehow considered special or privileged under Senate rules, such that they pre-empt other pending Senate business, or are they under the majority leader's control like everything else?

Reason I ask is that some people are saying the Democrats should impeach USAG Bob Barr on charges of something-or-other. Presumably they can think up some plausible charges and for all I know, Barr might even be guilty (those guys are always guilty of something). But the real motivation to impeach Barr is that the proceedings would supposedly push out Amy Comey Barrett's Senate confirmation til after the election.

What I'm wondering is: how would that work? The D-controlled House could send articles of impeachment to the Senate, but couldn't McConnell just sit on them, at least til ACB is confirmed? Or would he have to temporarily stop the ACB proceedings? I don't remember quite how this was handled during Trump's first impeachment. (There hasn't been a 2nd or higher one yet, but maybe it could happen if Barr and ACB's proceedings leave time for it, or if Trump is re-elected).

Thanks.

2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion here at the time, and if I recall correctly, it was McConnell's discretion as to when to pursue the impeachment thing. Since it was clearly not going to result in conviction, he probably decided to just get it over with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am aware of no reason why Leader McConnell would be required either under Senate rules or the Constitution to have an impeachment tried prior to the floor vote on Judge Barrett's nomination. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Groups that were historically territorially dispersed but now have a compact territorial unit of their own?
Which groups were historically territorially dispersed but now have a compact territorial unit of their own (not necessarily an official one--though an official one would also count for this)? I can think of the Jews (who were historically dispersed among many countries but now have Israel), the Sikhs (whose presence in Punjab was much more spread out until the 1947 Partition of India, which allowed them to settle en masse in the Indian Punjab and become a majority of the total population there, something which still remains true today when the Indian Punjab is almost 60% Sikh), and the Armenians (who were historically much more spread out than they currently are but who became a majority of the total population in present-day Armenia as a result of the Armenian Genocide and the mass exodus of Armenians from eastern Anatolia (also known as Western Armenia) in the 1910s and early 1920s).

Anyway, which additional groups can likewise qualify for this? Mormons, I suppose, due to them becoming a majority in Utah once they settled there en masse in the 1840s or so, but who else? Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * American Indians, confined to reservations, and those in Oklahoma kicked off their lands. deisenbe (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose so? Futurist110 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Roman Catholic priests. —Tamfang (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * LOL! Futurist110 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Did Abraham Lincoln say this, and if so when/where?
Lincoln is reputed to have said that the Civil Wsr was John Brown's raid on a much larger scale.

Did he in fact express this view, and if so what's the reference?

I say "reputed" because I ran acrossit in a source I viewed at the time and still view, as unreliable. If I had a reliable source I would definitely have made a note of it (cited it).

Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I found nothing like that in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. It also seems unlikely: Lincoln (obviously) agreed with John Brown in thinking slavery wrong and admired his courage and unselfishness, but said at the same time this could not excuse violence and bloodshed. Lincoln's position was that the South started the Civil War with the attack on Fort Sumter; using a simile with John Brown's raid would have suggested agreement with the president of the Confederacy, or ascription of courage and unselfishness. There is a smidgen of agreement, in that Lincoln considered both John Brown's raid and secession acts of treason that should be dealt with. --Lambiam 09:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a nifty tool I was unaware of. Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. I stumbled on this, looking at all the times he mentioned John Brown. I don't think Lincoln was thinking of Brown, but this is sure like something Brown would have said:


 * "The President responded very impressively, saying that he was deeply sensible of his need of Divine assistance. He had sometime thought that perhaps he might be an instrument in God's hands of accomplishing a great work and he certainly was not unwilling to be. Perhaps, however, God's way of accomplishing the end which the memorialists have in view may be different from theirs. It would be his earnest endeavor, with a firm reliance upon the Divine arm, and seeking light from above, to do his duty in the place to which he had been called." source


 * deisenbe (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Remarkably, something very like your original quote was written at the time of the Harpers Ferry raid. An editorial in the Nashville Republican Banner predicted that "the page that records the bloody events of the last two days, will be but a preface to the history of a civil war in which the same scenes will be re-enacted on a larger scale".  Source: . --Antiquary (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This article describes the outrage felt within the Democratic Party and press when President Lincoln signed the Proclamation of Emancipation on 1st January 1863.  The Hartford Times accused Lincoln of violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution and asserted that Republicans had now “openly proclaimed” the war “is a John Brown raid on a gigantic scale.” This phrase has appeared in a few book reviews of the Civil War (maybe not the books themselves&mdash;I don't know), attributing it to Lincoln himself.--Bill Reid | (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)