From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 5	<< Aug | Sep | Oct >>	September 7 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

Contents 1 September 6 1.1 Actress Joyce Jameson's Cause of Death? 1.2 arthur goldberg's sons 1.3 Philosophical belief (right vs. wrong) 1.4 ethical considerations 1.5 Unusual Sexual Practice 1.6 Something about Bulls 1.7 Vegetarians---Body building. 1.8 Irish Copyright Law 1.9 Looking for correct song title and lyrics 1.10 Leighton Sumner 1.11 Gang sign? 1.12 Attorney-client privilege 1.13 Orders of Succession--Royal Families 1.14 Incredible Hulk

[edit] September 6

[edit] Actress Joyce Jameson's Cause of Death?

She died in 1987 aged 54. I can't find any reliable information about how it happened. I've searched online obituaries and other obvious sources, but they never list a cause. IMDb have recently put "suicide" on her bio, but of course this was only submitted by a user and I can't find any verification of it (IMDb had the incorrect date of death for her until I corrected it, so clearly their info can be unreliable). Psychonaut3000

[edit] arthur goldberg's sons

Bold text

Hmm, "Bold Text" -- Very cryptic question. Perhaps the subject can shed light on this. "Arthur Golberg's Sons" -- nope. Arthur Goldberg only has one son. Maybe the questioner (using "question" very loosely) is asking if little Robert Golberg was cloned? --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical belief (right vs. wrong)

I recall learning of a philosophy that basically states that right and wrong are relative, and, for instance, if the Nazis had won over and people believed that the Nazis were right (at least a majority believed this), than the Nazis would indeed be right. So basically there is no definite right or wrong, but only those ideas that societies hold to be right or wrong. Could anyone tell me what this philosophy is called? Thanks in advance :) Russia Moore 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What the majority of the people say is right is right. What the majority of the people say is wrong is wrong. I think this is called peer pressure. If you do not believe me then try and find a Saudi Arabian citizen that say "I'm an atheist because God does not exists." Ohanian 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I think I found my own answer :) I believe I was thinking of Moral relativism. But I would appreciate someone who knows a bit more on the subject letting me know if I defined it properly, or if there is a sub-belief that better fits what I described, as the name isn't familiar... -Russia Moore 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you do not want to read about Meta-ethics? Ohanian 04:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, that's good, too! :) Russia Moore 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the majority of people would likely never have agreed that the Nazis were right, in that the majority of the Earth's population was planned to be a giant slave colony under Nazi domination. They likely wouldn't have said anything publicly, if they wanted to live, but that doesn't mean they agreed with the Nazis. StuRat 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you've found the right concept when you found moral relativism. If you ask me, in its mild form it's a bunch of left-wing nonsense that has the potential to do harm in the sense that it seeks to understand rather than appropriately deal with immoral behaviour, (perfect example: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter",) and in its most extreme form it can be used to justify the most perverse of right-wing ideologies, such as Nazism. I tend to lean heavily toward the opposite - moral absolutism: What's RIGHT is RIGHT and what's WRONG is WRONG, regardless of the circumstances or culture involved. If, hypothetically the Nazis won over every person in the world to ascribe to their ideology, and if I were the only one left to say "NO!", I'd do so 'till the day they find me and kill me. Loomis 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Like moral absolutism, moral relativism is more of a philosophical caricature than a practical position. Merely because one cannot speak absolutely of moral standards does not mean one cannot speak of them at all, and thereby acquire morals to live by. A so-called moral relativist can be just as moral as a so-called absolutist, the only difference being that the relativist claims to acquire a new morality, while the absolutist claims to acquire a "true" or "truer" morality. But they're essentially doing the same thing: redefining the rules they live by. As for Hitler, I'd say he was not a moral relativist because he considered his behavior justified by "providence", which is presumably eternal, universal, etc. And he sure got a lot of people to go along with him, didn't he? Absolutism is unfalsifiable, because one can always claim to have discovered the "real" truth this time around, then later dismiss it as an illusion or ignorance or something. But the idea that the only alternative is "everything goes" is just stupid, and unfortunately a lot of people who oppose absolutism feel obliged to become nihilists, not realizing there are alternatives, such as rationality. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in between, as I suspect most people are. While some moral rules are absolute (like "no setting your kids on fire"), others are more flexible, by culture, like plural marriages. StuRat 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And you would enter history as the last "evil person". Flamarande 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I take the view that there's no such thing as something that is always wrong, for all people in all circumstances; or always right, for all people in all circumstances. From that position, I'd say there could be some situation where setting your kids on fire would be preferable to them suffering an even worse fate, if those 2 fates were the only ones available to them. Horrible as it sounds, sometimes people need to make really, really difficult choices. LIke jumping from the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to a ghastly death on the sidewalk below, rather than waiting to be fried in the fire. Or like the dilemma faced by Sophie in Sophie's Choice. She was told one of her 2 children would be taken away to the gas chambers, and one would survive - but she had to choose which one died and which one lived. How could any parent make such a choice? But if you had to, you would somehow do it. "Right vs. wrong" doesn't seem to be a very useful frame of reference for such choices. JackofOz 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think the Nazis were right, of course, and I understand that most people would believe the nazis are wrong had they won. Perhaps a better example would be if in most societies it was commonly viewed as "right" for people to steal from any unattended store, with the logic that the store's workers aren't doing their job well enough if thieves get away. One view is that this stealing is wrong, as it comes almost all from greed, and/or breaks biblical laws, etc. Another view is that if that was the culture's values, it would be right, as there is no "ultimate" right or wrong. Cannibalism is also another good example. Cannibals didn't/don't feel it is wrong to eat human flesh. They could be right or wrong, depending on your views. -Russia Moore 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

I suppose I am pretty much a relativist, moral or otherwise. I sometimes find myself thinking that if some people don't want democracy then we shouldn't force it down their throats. But then that is in contradiction with itself - I 'reject' democracy on democratic grounds ("...if that is what they want..."). But then I think about the fact that Hitler came to power through a democratic process and realise that democracy isn't quite perfect either, so what basis do some have to force democracy upon others (which in itself is of course an undemocratic act). And then I get aheadache and stop thinking about it, and then realise that that is probably why a lot of people dislike moral relativism - shooting your enemy is a lot easier.

Of course, to fight an enemy you also have to understand them. Take for example the rise of Pim Fortuyn in Dutch politics. He was a moral absolutist, saying that Islam is evil. So he was pretty dangerous, so a non-relativist lefty decided that it was better to not seek to understand but take action instead and killed him - the sort of thing Loomis prefers, judging by his comment. But I, being a relativist, tried to understand what was going on. And so did the other parties. And when they figured it out they incorporated it into their own policies and thus caused the LPF to disappear as fast as it appeared. And many argued (and I agreed) that that demonstrated the strength of Dutch politics. It is slow because it takes all possible views into account, but thus it also keeps the people happy and when it fails it corrects itself throught the existence of a political party for every possible political view, which the other parties can then adapt to.

I suppose that in the Netherlands, with some 10 parties in government, we have a morally relativistic political system. Which I like, but I suppose that is exactly because I grew up in the Netherlands, but then that would be a morally relativistic observation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course - damn, this headache.... :) DirkvdM 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you "force democracy on people who don't want it", then they are free to change their Constitution to whatever form of government they want. Or, more likely, there will be some coupe, and nobody will bother to oppose it, as happened in the case of Hitler. So, setting up a new democracy should just be seen as a temporary form of government until they get the form of government they really want. On the other hand, if you set up a dictator, there may not be any way to go from that to democracy, even if that's what 90% of the population wants. Why set up any form of government ? Well, in a case like Afghanistan, where the old government has been removed (and rightly so), you have to replace it with something, don't you ? StuRat 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets already did that, I believe. And then there are other groups who also want to install the government they like. The more parties there are who want to install their preferred form of government, the bigger the mess (like the US and the UN doing separate and partially conflicting things there). The end result is that no functioning government gets installed (for a long time anyway). The central question here (in this thread) is who is in the right. And who is to determine who is. Like I said many times before, if there is no absolute answer to this then there should be an alternative like the joint opinion of the peoples of teh world (ie the UN). Or maybe it's better to leave them to solve it for themselves. Alien intervention rarely has a positive lasting (enduring...) outcome.

Also, democray in the sense of rule of the majority, isn't the only way. Ruling by consensus is another. That's roughly what the UN uses. The Netherlands has an intermediate solution. Which democracy is to be installed and who is to decide that? Should this also be decided through a democratic method? But which one then? (damn, that headache ...) DirkvdM 09:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The big diff is that a democracy can be easily changed to whatever form of government the majority chooses (including different kinds of democracy), without the need to resort to violence. Any other form may require a violent revolution. Similarly, the "leave them to solve it for themselves" approach virtually guarantees years of civil war until some faction gains the upper hand. The UN is a (non)consensus of world dictators, not a consensus of the people of the world. StuRat 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have often thought how the barebone democracy of the US could be changed to a true democracy, like a parliamentary democracy. I still haven't been able to think of one. Can you? No other party than the two present ones will ever stand a chance and the ruling parties are never going to change the constitution to accommodate other parties (they'd be nuts).

You seem to think that the US Constitution established the two-party system. In reality, it doesn't even mention political parties. And, as I've mentioned before, the two party system does have some advantages, like keeping bizarre fringe parties from gaining office, like neo-Nazi parties. Perhaps you need a two party system so you can keep people like Pim Fortuyn out of office without having to assassinate them. StuRat 15:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So 'democracy' isn't an absolute thing. There are many different kinds. Like I said, who is to decide which one is to be installed? Also, how should power be distributed between the differnet levels? That is an issue with the EU. How much power should it have compared to national governments? The US is another solution, with more federal power than Europeans want at the moment. The people at least, not the politicians (so where's the democracy there then?). Or maybe the Indian and Yugoslavian solution - splitting the country up. That could be the way Iraq goes (whether the invaders want it or not). And should there be referenda? Now there's true democracy for you. Too democratic according to some and I am inclined to agree. In other words, "go and install a democracy" sounds a whole lot easier than it is. Which (aspects of) democracy and (again) who is to decide that? And how? Etc. I agree that democracy is a good thing, but people think too lightly about it. And about forcing it down other people's throats. DirkvdM 07:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ethical considerations

what aare erthical considers of rocking out to Everclear as he singsabout his horridle life ! Jasbutal 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That the noise of his carousing disturbs others? :)

That he ultimately harms himself and others?

I don't know. :) What does he think? Rentwa 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual Sexual Practice

Hi,

I have been searching the web for an answer to these questions for a couple of days and have been unable to find the answer, either because of ignorence on my part, or the info is just not out there. Most probably the former.

I once saw a porographic video in which the female involved was thrusting a small vibrator or dildo (my guess is approx. 1cm in diameter) in and out of the males urethra. I was suprised to find myself very aroused by observing this activity.

Can you please inform me as to what this activity is called both clinically and slangly? What physical pleasure may be derived by the male who is involved? And also, is this practice safe or potentially harmful to the penis and or urethra.

Thank you insight you can provide.Hornytoad62 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Hornytoad62

• I've never heard of such a practice, but I can tell you right now, that this is harmful to the penis involved. It is not made for things like that to be inserted and the urethra wall could easily get damaged. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• This would be urethral sounding. The external links in that article may be able to help you.-gadfium 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I once saw a video of a man inserting his penis into a woman's urethra and having sex with the orifice until climax. Unless it was very clever use of trick photography and prosthetics, I'm pretty sure that it was genuine. Scary, huh? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that would be very harmful. You might want to check out the differences between urethra and vagina :). —Daniel (‽) 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, man - it was her peehole. She had dildos inside her vagina and anus at the time. I couldn't believe my eyes either. Not erotic at all - but one of those things that you just can't help but watch to the end, and shudder... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"kids_in_sandbox.mpg?" JayW 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something about Bulls

I've had a doubt since long time that why the bulls become aggressive on seeing red color..? Are they able to recognize only red color? Temuzion 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Our article Bullfighting says that bulls are actually colour blind and that the red cape waved at them is just a matter of tradition. It's more the twitching of the cape that gets them aggressive - plus the fact that, by this stage, the poor creature has already got a load of sharp sticks in it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A slight elaboration on that: the bull is first pissed off by sticking little spears in it, so that it wants to attack something - anything that moves. Bulls are not only colourblind, they've got rather bad eyesight. So if the only thing around that moves is a 'cape' it will go for that, ignoring the man standing next to it, holding it. Since that man could be a tree, the bull will not ram it - it's not that stupid. But after a few fights it figures out what is going on and will go for the man. So bulls are killed before they get too smart. In Spain that is. I've heard that in Mexico they can't afford to kill the bulls, nor hurt them. So they re-use the bulls more often and piss them off buy moving closer. At least they give the bull a fighting chance. Brave mexicans. DirkvdM 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarians---Body building.

I want to know one thing clearly..! Do the vegetarians can't get perfect physique by going to gym regularly...? Is it true that being a vegetarian and still going to gym regularly would lead to the sapping of his stamina..? Do non-veg food is the only reason beyond the standard body building..? Temuzion 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Vegetarians can get enough protein, as well as every other nutrient needed for body building. It does require more effort, however, as certain foods, in certain combinations, must be eaten by vegetarians for optimal health. StuRat 11:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as vegetarians get all essential nutrients (see also our article on Vegetarianism), regular workouts should be healthy and increase their stamina. I don't know about "perfect physique"; as far as appearance goes, that is clearly a matter of taste. --Lambiam^Talk 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All that assuming they take very good care with what they eat. i once had vegetarianism forced down my throat at a rainbow gathering, which made me really sick. Fruit is healthy. Too much fruit isn't. Nothing but fruit is dangerous. (The fruit, the whole fruit and nothing but the fruit. :) ) DirkvdM 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I expect there were quite a few fruits at the rainbow gathering. :-) StuRat 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that an all-fruit diet is unhealthy, but there's no reason why a vegetarian diet should be limited to just fruit. There's also vegetables, grains, nuts, legumes, etc., and for some there's also eggs, milk, or even fish. StuRat 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But no one is clearly giving a satisfactory explanation 4 my question...y all of u r going only towards diet and rainbow gathering... what about gym....? Temuzion 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question is written in strange English, and I thought we had answered it already, but here is one last try:

I want to know one thing clearly..! Do the vegetarians can't get perfect physique by going to gym regularly...?

I assume you mean "Is it true that vegetarians can't get as good of a physique (by going to the gym regularly) as a meat eater ?". The answer is NO, IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE ! StuRat 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that being a vegetarian and still going to gym regularly would lead to the sapping of his stamina ?

NO, IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE ! StuRat 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do non-veg food is the only reason beyond the standard body building..?

I assume you mean "Why do bodybuilders tend to eat meat ?". They do need a lot of protein, fats, and calories, and meat provides those. It is possible to get those from a vegetarian diet, as well, it just requires eating a rather large quantity of food. StuRat 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you still don't believe me, see this site: [1] StuRat 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Copyright Law

Does anyone how long copyright lasted on works in Ireland prior to the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (93/98/EEC) ? - ^Рэд_хот 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found it was 50 years after death of author. - ^Рэд_хот 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for correct song title and lyrics

I'm looking for the correct title (though I think that I'm right) and lyrics to a song called "Heaven" by Bebe and Cee Cee Winans

It's probably out there, but lyrics to the title track seem rather hard to pin down. sorry. --Mnemeson 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I want to search for song lyrics, I use a distinctive phrase from the song (assuming I know one) as the key. Searching for the title mostly gets lists of titles, in my experience. —Tamfang 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leighton Sumner

Hello I would like to ask someone if it would be possible to help me ? A painting was brought to my attention by the reading of a book called The Forest by a Mr.Rutherford. The book is about the New Forest's history, and on the back cover is a reproduction of The Chase by Leighton sumner. However it is so small I cannot see the details properly,and so I cannot try to draw it myself.I would really appreciate someone maybe downloading a copy of it onto my computer so I can print it out and have a go at trying to recreate it . Thankyou very much.

                            Kelly

[edit] Gang sign?

I have heard more than once that tennis shoes hanging from telephone wires mark gang territory. Is this true, or an urban legend? Pete

There are a lot of funny/scary answers on the straight dope I would think that given the number of kids screwing around throwing them up there just because they can would override any kind of meaningful signaling system. BTW they probably show up just as often in rich neighborhoods as poor. But the rich ones get better municiple services and they are taken down faster. Nowimnthing 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Shoe tossing. --Allen 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The best part about the "straight dope" answers is how shoddy the thinking is on some of the replies, i.e. "it was proven to me" because he saw a correlation one time. In my neighborhood irritating kids throw their shoes up there for the hell of it. I think it's irritating. I don't live in the ghetto. --Fastfission 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• it marks an area inhabited by sole brothers-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Attorney-client privilege

Hello I was wondering what would void the attorney-client privilege or what are some of the exceptons?

seeAttorney-client privilege#Limits of attorney-client privilege Nowimnthing 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders of Succession--Royal Families

In the various national lists of succession order there are sometimes the notations starting "skipped". What does that mean? Also, names/titles listed in RED--what is the reason for that? <Email address removed on behalf of Nigerian bankers>24.28.87.194 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There could be any number of reasons for a person being skipped in the line of succession; they may be ineligable for some reason (e.g. marriage to a commoner will disqualify in some systems, or converting to a religion that's illegal or else incompatible with their position). Red links are articles that haven't yet been written. Be bold and help us create them! :) --Mnemeson 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a person can die while their parent is on the throne. Later, their child can inherit the throne. I think this is what everyone hopes will happen with Prince Charles, as nobody particularly wants that tampon-wanna-be as a king. Of course, his Nazi-wanna-be son might not be any better. StuRat 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank god it will be Prince William and not "Nazi-wanna-be" Harry after Prince Charles. --The Dark Side 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not if Willie marries a Papist. Now, if Charles would just marry one... - Nunh-huh 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incredible Hulk

Who the hell keepos changing the incredible hulk around? first sentence of the first paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.50.48.157 (talk • contribs).

here's the history list for that article. You can see who changed what, and if you disagree with their edits, leave them messages on their talk pages/the article's talk page to discuss them --Mnemeson 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)