Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 30 Humanities desk archive September 1 >
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

[edit] Elizabeth Godolphin - benefactress of the Gololphin School (1725).

I cannot find out anything else about her on the web. Would be very grateful if you could help.203.173.2.19 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Caroline Shelton

First of all you spelt the school wrong. I did a search and it didn't turn up much on her. The best I could find is here. --The Dark Side 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women and shoes

Not to be stereotypical, but how come a lot of women seem to like shoes? What about shoes attracts them? Is it a sentimental thing for shoes? Do they think the shoes are a part of them, make them attractive etc. How come more women than men care about shoes?

Also, I know a lot of men (stereotypically, yes I know) may have a favourite car/motorcycle/gadget that they feel sentimental about, giving it a name, personality etc. and getting all upset and sad when the item is old/worn-out and has to be retired/discarded? Do women ever feel the same way about their shoes?

Do women feel sentimental about throwing away their old shoes? 64.231.141.217 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They never throw away old shoes. THey have so many pairs that they never wear out 8-)--Light current 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you seriously ask your librarian these kind of questions? --The Dark Side 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No sorry. Its 'this kind of questions'. Grammar you know! 8-)--Light current 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Try either "This kind of question", or "These kinds of questions". JackofOz 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean 'These kinds of question' dont you?--Light current 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It is all good. --The Dark Side 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, notwithstanding that it's all good, this kind of questions, per Light current, is, I'd imagine, fine, although I'd likely say questions of this kind. As to the shoes, Imelda Marcos is probably the archetypal shoe collector (having owned somewhere between 1060 and 3000 pair [or is that pairs? :)]), but perhaps she's simply a compulsive hoarder; according to our article, upon her husband's deposition, she left in their presidential palace 500 brassieres and 200 girdles. Joe 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
THe number of pairs of shoes is probably only limited by the available cash!--Light current 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Light current, those who make errors while correcting others are in for a fun time.

  • There's no such word as "dont"; there is a "don't" (abbreviations require apostrophes, you know!)
  • The "Its" when you corrected The Dark Side is "It's" (ditto)
  • "Grammar you know!" needs a comma after grammar. Without it, you're telling him he knows grammar, which is the reverse of what I think your point was. :--) JackofOz 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont use apostrophes in my abbreviations as I cant be bothered typing them (everybody understands them). Commas are defined under punctuation, not grammar. However, you are correct about the comma. I forgot it. 8-)--Light current 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn your user page says you're a self-declared pedant and perfectionist. Must have been thinking about someone else, I guess. JackofOz 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Ive relaxed a bit on talk, but Im still keen on getting the articles perfect!--Light current 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I encourage, implore, entreat, exhort and beg you to mend your slack ways and return to the perfection you were destined for. We perfect people didn't get where we did by practising imperfection in our spare time, and if you profess to become like us, you have to do what we do. (cough) Besides, if perfection is the sine qua non for the general anonymous consumer of WP articles, then how much more should it be the minimum standard for people who take the time and trouble to come to the ref desk with particular questions. This is just as much the public face of Wikipedia as any article might be. (Thus endeth today's lesson). Go, and sin no more. JackofOz 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it may appear to make me look too stuffy and British?--Light current 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference? No, just my joke. "Certainly not" is my serious answer to your question. Peer pressure is not the be-all-and-end-all.  :--) JackofOz 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nursing school/nursing skills

The teacher want a short paragraph on:Why shouldnt you place a dirty linen bed sheet on the floor when changing a patients bed sheets.And why should you place a dirty linen bed sheet on the floor when changing a patients bed in ER.

Think infection--Light current 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you got my curiosity. What is the difference? alteripse 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Youre a doctor, not a nurse, Alterprise. Isnt that right?--Light current 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How often is the ER floor disinfected? How often is the ward floor disinfected?--Light current 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the teacher would also want it to come out of your own noggin. You won't have a gang of Wikipaedians gathered round when you are in surgery...'OK so I have to amputate.Where can I find out how to do this and why it's not a good idea to leave the severed limb lying about on the floor'... Lemon martini 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it because it could be the start of a legend in the theatre ? 8-)--Light current 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a doctor, so I have never had to change the bed linen. But now I am curious as to why it's ok to drop the dirty linen on the floor in the ER but not a hospital room. They both end up going to the hospital laundry. Both places have plenty of people wearing shoes from outside the hospital. So if this is a real question and not a trick or a joke, I would like to know the answer. alteripse 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am neither a doctor nor a nurse. But my logic would be:
  1. This is about cross infection
  2. In a ward, you dont want infective materials (or body fliuds) on the floor where they can be picked up and tramped around to other patients on the shoes of visitors ore nurses.. So you put soiled or used linen in a nylon bag.
  3. In an ER which I assume is similar to A&E over here (UK) you are trying to stabilize patients/ save their lives etc. Cross infection is not the priority here, and changing the sheets must be done with minimum disruption to the patient. Hence: chuck em on the floor (the sheets not the patient). Also I would imagine that each emergency bay is for one patient only nad that this bay will be sterilised before it is used again.

That is my uneducated guess. But Im probably wrong in part.--Light current 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You might have hit on it with the difference between transmissibility of hospital-acquired germs versus community-acquired germs. The former are more dangerous to other patients. I would still prefer to hear an answer from a nurse who knows the rationale given to her when she was taught that. alteripse 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If I get it right, Im gonna apply to be a nurse! Actually , I fancy the Matrons job! 8-)--Light current 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal free license

I am thinking of releasing my non-derivative work on the Wikimedia Commons under the following license, which I wrote myself:

This work may be used for any purpose provided that:
  1. Attribution must be given to me. If the work is a derivative, an exact copy of the original or a link thereto must be included.
  2. This work cannot be used for advertising.
  3. This work cannot be included in any product to which Digital Rights Management technology is applied.
  4. If a derivative of this work is published, it must be released under a license that does not forbid any use, other than advertising, that would not be forbidden by any version of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, GNU Free Documentation License or GNU General Public License.
  5. The conditions in this list numbered 2, 4 and 5 (the latter having "enough of this work" changed to either "enough of the work located at [original URL]" or "enough of this work and/or the work located at [original URL]", and the text in these parentheses removed in the former case) must be imposed on any derivative works that contain enough of this work to be covered by the same copyright. The condition in this list numbered 3 must be applied to all derivatives that descend from this work.

The penultimate point is an attempt a flexible copyleft. The idea behind the last is that if, through a long series of derivatives, my work is completely eliminated from a descendant, then the descendant doesn't have to be copyleft or suffer the advertising restriction if the intervening authors don't want it to.

My questions are:

  • Will the advertising restriction make the license unfree by generally accepted standards?
  • Is this license actually forward-compatible with GFDL, GPL and cc-by-sa?

NeonMerlin 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For Wikimedia Commons questions, you should ask at Wikimedia Commons itself, but in general, "no commercial use" licenses are not acceptable there (and are deprecated here, for that matter). AnonMoos 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM!!!!!

Hi, I need to download the national anthem of Australia, Advance Australia Fair (the remix version that was played during New Year's Eve 2004)to do my assignment. Where can I download from? THANKS Jon

Jon, our article on Advance Australia Fair actually mentions this dance remix, and says that it was commissioned by Clover Moore. You could try contacting her to ask. --Robert Merkel 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was Waltzing Mathilda. DirkvdM 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the U.S. Air Force Order of the Sword

Not sure if this is the right place to turn with a question that actually concerns an article, but does anyone know anything about the history of an U.S. Air Force decoration called the "Order of the Sword"?

The Wikipedia article (Order of the Sword (United States)) has been infested by pseudohistorical claims to continuity with the Royal Swedish Order of the Sword, which in this version of reality was founded as a war organisation of non-commissioned officers by Gustavus Vasa. The Swedish order was in fact founded only about 200 years later, in 1748, by Frederick I, as a pure state decoration and limited to commissioned officers. The Order is then supposed to have been introduced to America during the Revolutionary War, then remained dormant for a long time, until it was revived during the civil war, "when it was presented to Robert E. Lee", then dormant again until it was revived in 1967 (diff), or, according to another version, it remained domant all the time until 1967 (diff). In some versions the history stretches back to the 12th century, or a medieval "British" connection is introduced.

The article originally linked to a couple of webpages detailing the claimed history of the USAF decoration. These pages are now gone from cyberspace. "Order of the Sword" + "U.S. Air Force" (or similar searches) gets a number of Google hits, such as this or this, offering versions of this story. It appears likely that 1967, when the order was supposedly revived, was the actual foundation year. But there seems to be no official page and no useful sources that do not suffer from obviously parroting some kind of probably very recent USAF lore that contradicts well-established knowledge on the Swedish decoration. up+l+and 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] globalization

A few questions: 1. how do you know that globalization is occuring? 2. What are Niesh Markets? 3. Why have they been able to take off? Thanks.

  • The way you phrased that makes me suspect it's a homework question. Feel free to ask help with any specific questions, but don't expect us to do your homework for you. Try reading globalization to start with. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And you might want to check your spelling as you research - it took a while before I realised your second question was referring to Niche markets --Mnemeson 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this time it wasn't homework? I remember when I got homework, the topic would either be handed out on paper, or it would at least be written on the blackboard. Does this teacher actually spell Niche "Niesh"? If so, the questioner could use all the help s/he could get! Loomis 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sometimes people who ask homework questions here forgot to take notes and only remember hearing something. Anyway, he should now have enough information in the articles to figure out the answers himself. - Mgm|(talk) 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stainless steel nail files

I'm searching for a company in the US who currently manufactures stainless steel nail files. I've searched every search engine possible with no luck. Can you help me?

Why SS? Are you going to file your nails under water?--Light current 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Which search engines were those? Mind you this company sells them, but I'm sure if you ask them nicely they'll tell you who manufactured them. :-) For more leads, try this google search. Anchoress 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Anchoress, the company you linked to is from Pakistan, not the U.S. ColourBurst 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, lol, I have to read more carefully. Missed the 'US' part. Or forgot. Sorry all! Anchoress 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government of United States

If Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are the only "commonwealths," what types of state governments do Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey have? And what are the fundamentals that establish their laws, including Pennsylvania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.232.72 (talk • contribs)

The other 46 states are States. Would you be interested in the Pennsylvania Constitution ? --Mnemeson 14:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Commonwealth" is, in the case of the states mentioned, simply a flowery word carrying no meaning. There are 50 states in the US. Properly speaking, US Commonwealths are those political divisions of the United States somewhere between "territory" and "state", and the term is pretty much archaic. — Lomn | Talk 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you say (after all, America isn't 'The United States and Commonwealths'), but as long as those four refer to themselves as Commonwealths, I'm (personally) inclined to use the flowery word, at least from time to time. Both self-definition and words are fun :) --Mnemeson 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are states like the other 46 U.S. states. The only thing that they have in common is that they happen to use the word "commonwealth" as part of their official name, unlike the other 46 states. But the governments of the four "commonwealths" do not have any special features. They are like the governments of the other 46 states. Each state has its own set of laws. The four states that use the word "commonwealth" as part of their name do not share any particular law because they are called commonwealths. Every state, including the four "commonwealths", has a state constitution that sets out the rules for its governments and for its law code. Marco polo 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And don't confuse all of this with the Commonwealth of Nations. DirkvdM 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to be confused with The Wealth of Nations? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can one contact you over the phone

By picking up the reciever, dialling the number and waiting. Why not use the email facility we have here for registerd users?--Light current 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, Wikipedia is not a company, and we do not link up with foreign companies to help manage waste. --LambiamTalk 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well were gonna have to manage this waste of 3 posts!--Light current 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest just deleting this whole para--Light current 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] women and sex

I want to find out what influences women to indulge in pre-marital sex even when they know it is wrong. Most importantly why women would have sex with married men yet they know it is wrong. How is it that the woman's level of education does count for much when making such decisions?

Wrong in what sense? And how do you know it is wrong? --LambiamTalk 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Whats 'wrong' about it in your view? and what do you mean by sex? kisssing, cuddling, petting, heavy petting......etc. Remember Clinton?--Light current 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that men do it too. ;) --The Dark Side 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Different cultures have different moral standards. I personally believe, because of this, nothing is absolutely right or wrong, it is relative to the culture you are in, and if something was morally right or wrong it wouldn't matter, because whatever culture you are in decides. Sound good to you? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

It is normal of human live to have sex. It is normal. Leave it go

Some people enjoy doing something because they think it's wrong. (None of my sex is pre-marital, because I never intend to get married!)--Shantavira 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Things that are forbidden or disapproved of have always attracted thrill seekers and others for increased excitement.--Light current 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be two different questions here: 1. Why would an unmarried woman engage in any sexual intercourse? and 2. Why would an unmarried woman conduct an affair with a married man? The poster treats these two issues as nearly interchangeable and morally wrong. In questioning the behavior only of women, rather than men's behavior also, the poster reflects a double standard.

Some people share the questioner's beliefs and violate their own principles because they desire sex (and possibly because they have low self-esteem or use sex as a replacement for other social relationships). Other people simply believe in different values: they might agree that sex outside marriage is wrong and consider it equally wrong for both men and women; they might regard sex between two unmarried people as ethically neutral but deplore adultery; others might regard "stealing a boyfriend" or "stealing a girlfriend" as nearly as offensive as adultery while having no qualms about sexual relationships between otherwise unattached people; others might regard the use of safe sex to prevent unwanted disease and pregnancy as the most important concern; still others have open polyamorous relationships along such guidelines as The Ethical Slut, in which the main ethical imperative is that all conduct occurs between informed and consenting adults. Durova 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannons on Ships

Did European warships have cannons in 1398? When did they start to have? --Longwang 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Our article on Cannons seems to suggest they didn't. Probably the 17th century from the looks of it--VectorPotential71.247.243.173 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Meaning the 1600s, not 1700s. Haven't you ever watched Pirates of the Caribbean? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Not really, is it a good movie? Saw the trailer once. oh, and nevermind about the canons, I just re-read it, 17th century is when they started making them out of metal, probably had stone projectiles going back quite a bit further--VectorPotential71.247.243.173 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Cannons on a Ship
Cannons on a Ship
Thank You! I was asking because I've seen a 19th century painting depicting the Teutonic Knight's attack on Visby, which shows cannons on the ships. I was wondering if that's historically accurate. --Longwang 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the plural of 'cannon' is still 'cannon', so your title is wrong. —Daniel (‽) 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Both forms are correct according to Webster. --Longwang 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Another incredible coincidence on the ref desk. I read this while updating the administration of my video tapes and was just wondering why 'Pirates of the Carribbean' and 'Curse of the black pearl' looked so similar. Turns out the full title is 'Pirates of the Carribbean: curse of the black pearl'. I mean, I had just realised this a few seconds ago and was just rewinding one of the tapes for re-use when I read this. What are the chances? This happens to me a lot here on the ref desk. Is it hauted or do I spend too much time here? Btw, it's an entertaining film. Not bad for a Walt Disney movie. DirkvdM 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights

Do educated people actually support the crap known as Human Rights, or is it just some popular culture thing? --Life 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you educated? Do you think it is fun being tortured and imprisoned because a family member expressed disapproval with the actions of the powers that be? Explain why you think it is crap. --LambiamTalk 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say Human Rights was about 99% - 100% pure crap - I have Tony Blair endlessly haranguing me about Human Rights, I see bombs being shipped from US to Isreal via UK and today I hear that most of the cluster bombs dropped by Israel were dropped in civilian areas within 72 hours of the cease-fire (hundreds of thousands of unexploded bomblets in the report I heard). I have no view btw on right or wrong in the Middle East conflict, I'm just saying that as far as I can tell 'Human Rights' is nothing more than an emotive piece of Newspeak for politicians trying to claim the moral high ground (usually when they're about to spatter more gobs of human flesh across the world). Rentwa 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's more of a reason to condemn the policy of those governments than the human rights they're not abiding by. It's human rights that allow you to be critical of them without being arrested and tortured. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In the current climate of political apathy I don't think the Blair government cares much about a few embittered loners ranting on the internet, but it did use political bullying and legal chicanery to prevent the BBC reporting what the overwhelming majority of people regarded as the truth about its Iraq propaganda, and eventually forced the Director General of the BBC to resign. The scientist who leaked the truth was driven to suicide by the sh*tstorm Blair unleashed on him. Free Speech?
Re your comment 'That's more of a reason to condemn the policy of those governments than the human rights they're not abiding by' - there's no sense at all in making a distinction between Human Rights and the regimes that grant them or take them away. Human Rights as abstract concepts are just truisms about governance and happy lives - everyone agrees broadly on the principles. Rentwa 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If human rights didn't exist then why are you able to use the internet so freely? --The Dark Side 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the aftermath of the holocaust as an effort to prevent Nazi atrocities from happening again. That sounds like a good enough reason to take it seriously, even if you disagree with it. Where have you gotten the idea that the whole thing was "crap?" I suggest you read a wider range of sources before making up your mind. Durova 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did not know its historical nature, and I understand now that if what you say is true, then it was an overcompensation for Nazism, but today it is far too strongly libertarian that it endangers society. And I do not mean to say that people should be tortured because a family member disapproves of the authority. That is very bad for the society. However, it is also bad for the society to say something like "nobody can be tortured, ever, even if the safety of the world depends on it," which is what Human Rights seems to do.

--Life 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on your reading of it. A Kantian interpretation would say that torturing a person breaches their Human Rights, and is never acceptable. A Utilitarian interpretation could say that the right to life of everyone else demanded that that person be tortured. Whilst I personally find that utilitarian reading reprehensible, some people wouldn't see that as a twisting, so much as a reasonable view. Whilst neocons find them inconvenient, Human Rights are amongst the most important political theories to come out of the 20th century. --Mnemeson 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I subscribe to the utilitarian interpretation. Also, if someone rejects the concept of human rights totally, as terrorists do, I don't see how they can then claim protection under them, once they are captured. Human rights should be reciprocal, if you don't honor them, then yours shouldn't be respected. StuRat 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but I've never been able to agree. Moral imperatives (the acceptance or not of which appears to be where we differ)demand that you treat someone in a certain way, regardless of their own actions. If Human rights are to mean anything, we have to fight to uphold them even when we despise the person they're protecting. Otherwise, they become merely rights for the people we agree with. Kant's damned hard to read, but I think he has a lot of good stuff to say. --Mnemeson 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I approach this issue from a peculiar point of view: I'm a U.S. war veteran whose nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive. That said, I'm not at all confident that human rights violations are acceptable against terrorists. Here are a few reasons:
  • Torture is an unreliable method of getting information. People who are being tortured will say anything to stop the torture.
  • True, but if you verify the info you get, and only stop the torture if it's proven to be true, you should eventually get good info. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Suppose you've got the wrong guy: the real terrorist is still out there hiding and the dude whose rights you've abused is just an honest dentist.
  • True, so torture should only be used when you're absolutely sure who you've got. For example, if you catch somebody red-handed planting a bomb. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A country loses the moral high ground when it violates international treaty. No matter how good a reason we think we have in the short run, when some other country commits real atrocities we'll look like fools and hypocrites if we complain.
  • The U.S. of A. probably won't be the world's strongest country forever. Suppose China is the leading superpower fifty years from now: what sort of example do we want to set for the next top dog?
  • Both of these points assume that terrorist groups and other countries will do whatever we do. They never have in the past, so I doubt that they will in the future, either. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Cruel actions can radicalize otherwise peaceful individuals. I joined the U.S. armed forces after 9/11 specifically because those bastards nearly killed my family. So when, as an American, I came into contact with foreign nationals (especially refugees or people in custody) I always wanted to act in a way that would leave them telling family and friends how nice the Americans are. I certainly didn't want to inspire new hatred against my country.
  • Really nasty people usually try to "muddy the waters" by claiming their target is "just as bad." Stooping to their tactics alienates your own potential allies. Durova 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Both of these points, while true, neglect to mention that that, no matter what we do, those terrorist groups and other countries will claim we are engaging in a campaign of genocide against them. "News" orgs like al-Jazeera are all to happy to lend credence to such conspiracy theories. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So, to summarize, torture should be used rarely, when we are sure we have a bad guy who has info of critical importance in saving lives, and who we don't plan to ever release. Don't torture some random guy you find on the street without any ID, but do torture bin Laden, if captured. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the orginal poster life. Human Rights are crap. Let's look at it shall we?

There are a total of thirty articles outlining people's human rights, but the most important principles declared are considered to be the following:

Here is why some Human Rights are crap.

(1) Right to life. If all humans have the right to life then how can muslims kill infidels in a holy war? Crap!

(2) Right to liberty. If all humans have the right to liberty then how can a human submit themselves to Allah totally? Crap!

(3) Right to property. If all humans have the right to property then how can anything belong to Allah? Crap!

(4) Right to security of person. If all humans have the right to security of person then how can muslims threaten to kill apostates? Crap!

(5) Right to an education. That's acceptable as long as the education is about the truth and not spreading lies about Allah.

(6) The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security. The right to participate fully in cultural life. All acceptable.

(7) Freedom from torture. If humans cannot torture other humans then how can we extract information from traitors? Crap!

(8) Freedom of thought. If all humans have freedom of thought then they will think of sinful thoughts. Crap!

(9) Freedom of religion. All people are free to choose the correct religion. Acceptable. It's choosing the incorrect religion that is unacceptable.

(10) Freedom of expression/opinion. If all people have freedom of expression then how can one intimidate people that say nasty things about Allah? Crap!

Ohanian 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the the comment before mine since it seems that the author is distraught that his religion is not the one and only true religion. --The Dark Side 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- sorry? are you suggesting that fundamentalist islamic terrorists dont respect human rights? well, duh! they also dont respect the law generally-does that mean that the law is crap? what would you prefer-that we had no rights? that people could kill at will? on the issue of torture, could you please agree that a world completely without torture is better than a world where toture is rife? perhaps you might consider how best to acheive that objective? i personally believe (and what would i know with my expensive, liberal education?) that if countries such as mine (the UK) take an absolute stand against torture (and human rights abuses generally) then some day, in the far distant future, other countries might feel the same. we may not like it that those dirty foreigners who want to blow us up can say what they say without expecting to have their finger nails pulled out, but thats the sacrifice civilised society makes in the hope, however naǐve, that should we find ourselves accused of horrible things in some far off land, we can make it to the court room with our pedicured nails. - yes, educated believe absolutely in human rights. we believe in all those things you think are crap and we respect your right to belive otherwise. there may be those who hate us but that doesnt mean we have to stoop to their level. throwing away all the right we've fought for would be the most grotuesque knee jerk reaction, after all, only fools rush in..200.199.163.198 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the truth.

  • Humans do not have any human rights.
  • Instead human may be given privileges by Allah.
  • Allah gives a group of humans (muslims) certain privileges that other groups do not have.
  • It is only because of these god given privileges that muslims can perform certain actions.

Ohanian 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are the kinds of opinions that, unfortunately, give Islam a bad name. JackofOz 04:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree with that statement utterly and completely. Those, by far most responsible for giving Islam a bad name, are certain Muslims themselves. You're a Muslim, you crash a jetliner into an office building, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a Muslim, you blow yourself up in order to kill as many innocent lives as possible, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a Muslim, you lead a country, and you call for the genocide of an entire people, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a pacifist Muslim cleric, but you don't have the balls to condemn all of these atrocities, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're an average, hard-working, peace-loving Muslim, yet you can't resist participating in so-called "peace rallies" wherein the flag of the genocidal Hezobollah organization is waved proudly, (nay, dare even object to it!) YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. I'd say it's long overdue for Muslims to finally stop playing the worn out old victim role, and start taking responsibility for the deeds and misdeeds of their brethren. Only once this finally occurs can Islam retake its rightful place within the world's three monotheistic religions of peace. Muhammed, if he is indeed the man of peace he is described to be, would be utterly disgusted by ALL of those who claim to follow his teachings, yet passively acquiesce in such disgraceful, disgusting, inhuman, wholly Un-Islamic acts. Muhammed would surely be disgusted with what his teachings of peace, kindness and benevolence have degenerated into. Loomis 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well said. In the case of the Palestinians, the strategy of using terrorism to get what they want is such a dismal failure, you have to question their sanity. It's been almost 60 years since the partition, and, unless they consider death and destruction to be an "accomplishment", they have nothing to show for all the violence aimed at Israel. Had they followed Ghandi's example, and offered solely peaceful resistance, they would have the international community fully behind them, and even Israeli popular opinion would be sympathetic. This would allow them to have their own state, with full control of the borders, a booming economy, and peaceful relationships with their neighbors. Instead, they elect a terrorist run government, their economy is in collapse, they are pariahs in the civilized world, and they still don't seem to be willing to change course. StuRat 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Better not reveal your address, because someone might come over to your place to check how much you value your rights. DirkvdM 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Ohanian. It is a lot easier just calling the terrorist Islamic as opposed to something like neo-Islamofascist. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

I was the asker of this question; however, the topic has strayed from my interests. I do notice, however, that some proponents of Human Rights say things such as, "You can only say human rights are crap because human rights prevents you from being captured and tortured!" This is fallacious; the fact that Human Rights prevents this does not imply that Human Rights is the only thing that can do this. In reality, good governance does this, by realization that torturing somebody for saying Human Rights are crap is an idiotic move for the society(I think it is evident why). What I am trying to say is that Human Rights, although it corresponds slightly with good governance, also mandates certain things that are detrimental to society, such as the rights to life(even for dangerous criminals), to an education(even for retarded people), to paid holidays(clear cultural bias), freedom of religion(including religions with dangerous practices), freedom from torture(even when it is necessary), anf freedom of speech(even for dangerous massive propaganda campaigns). If I have misinterpreted Human Rights, and in reality they are supposed to be suggestions instead of mandates, please let me know. --Life 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread, but I don't see the problem. You're a human, right? And you have rights, right? Well, there you go. What those rights should be is a different matter. I suppose that at the core of this is that, like many people, you don't care much about rights that (you think) will not likely ever apply to you. And the further problem is that those other people might think that about differnt rights, that do apply to you. If they for a majority you're screwed. So that's why it is a good thing out of self interrest to promote a society that honours all rights, even the ones that don't apply to you.
This makes me think of that German who said that when the nazis started arresting the commies he didn't take action because he wasn't a commie. When the came for the gays he did nothing because he wasn't gay. When they came for teh gypsies, ... you get the idea. When finally they came for him there was nobody left to protest. DirkvdM 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That was Martin Niemöller. --LambiamTalk 07:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers in Arms

I heard that the song is dedicated to the defeated Vietnam soldiers (apparently US and allies). Is it true? I typed some combinations in Google but found no relevant hits. --Brand спойт 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on the eponymous album, the song you mention, and the previous three songs on the album, refer to guerilla wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980's. dpotter 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada License Plate

Hi, I'm in Vancouver BC and this morning I saw a CANADA license plate, if I remember correctly black lettering on white, odd dimensions compared to regular, 5 or 6 digits...the provinces issue their own license plates & this wasn't a Veteran's plate either. Any ideas what these are issued by/for? The vehicle was an unmarked van with normal windows & an old guy driving. Google was not my friend today.--24.80.70.174 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to US and Canadian license plates, the license plate you saw was for a vehicle belonging to Canada's armed forces. Marco polo 20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one, thanks. I was pretty sure it was armed forces but it was a plain vehicle.--24.80.70.174 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah well we've never had the richest armed forces, you know?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)