Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

Please, make me stop believing in the things white supremacists say

As the supposed oracle of human knowledge, I'd like to be converted by you.--YouGiveMeTheReason...YouGiveMeControl (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a counselling service or psychiatric help centre. If you are experiencing delusions, you should seek help from a trained psychiatrist. If you have specific factual questions, you should ask them here. Algebraist 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you desire being pointed to some nice succinct works that refute many common racist claims, I recommend Gould's Mismeasure of Man as a nice start to thinking about these sorts of issues. I am sure others could recommend more. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Compare Barack Obama to Larry the Cable Guy and tell me which one is the genetically inferior mud person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

An intelligent advocate for that position may only argue that whites, on average, are smarter than blacks. Thus comparing any one person from each race would not be an actual objection.--droptone (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If such a person existed then logically they would have to admit that an individual black should not be discriminated against, since they might be smarter than a given white person. That would rather ruin their supremacist argument. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the standard rebuttal for that would be that you don't make informed decisions based on the exceptions to rules. Racist logic is generally difficult to argue with, because anyone who's adopted that logic is generally working with a deeply ingrained set of assumptions, suppositions, and values which is greater than the sum of its parts. I think the best way to refute any kind of supremacist is not to pick apart their ideas, but to take a look at the various studies and experiments which show that people will buy into the weirdest crap under the sun if it allows them a feeling of superiority and control. Jane Elliott's blue eyes/brown eyes experiment is the first to spring to mind; it was summarized quite nicely in a recent Frontline video. I'm sure there's a canned white supremacist argument to shoot down said video; it might be as simple as "Nothing made by PBS is going to be unbiased." --Fullobeans (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think Mwalcoff's comment was meant to be in jest. While Larry the Cable Guy may be a genetically inferior mud person, I don't think the intent was that either person should be taken as representative of their entire race. Tomdobb (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious about wanting to be converted, you already know that what they say is hateful bullshit, and you're just looking for an excuse to make that leap away from a bunch of scared troglodytes. So go for it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is not a troll. I (not the original poster) really have the problem I describe in this comment I am about to describe: the same problem you do, but not about my race's "supremacy" but the awful habits Jews have, ie my impression of the same. I only acquired this disdain by pretending to be a Jew, infiltrating their synagogues and social networks in several cities, and coming to have a problem with how the Jews' network operates throughout the world. My problem is much bigger than yours, because my problem was in my mind based on facts, regularly reported in the New York Times, in stories such as today's "Madoff Will Plead Guilty; Faces Life for Vast Swindle". So how did I stop having my problem, in my mind based on facts? Well, in my case the solution is to focus on how hot jews are, despite the awful things I thought they did. You could try doing the same thing -- find hot representatives of the races you find odious, probably at universities etc, and by spending time with them you will come to love their race despite your understanding of their race's habits. Unlike me, you might also benefit from more exposure to the race, in case your understanding of the facts would change and you would realize how wrong you were just by spending time with them - in this case you could pretend to be one of them and infiltrate their race, and thereby you can try coming to a more correct factual understanding. (However, as it happened in my case, you might only make the problem worse, if mere exposure to the real habits of the race does not change your opinion of them for hte better). Therefore I recommend the route I describe above -- instead of trying to address your rational thinking, by gathering more facts through living with them first-hand, you could speak to your own sense of beauty and style, by finding outstanding representatives and focusing on them. Good luck. We do NOT need hate in the world, and I hope you are able to overcome your hate as I was able to overcome mine. note: first this comment was reverted as hate speech - I do NOT hate the Jews -- I USED to have a problem with this, but was able to overcome it, and I would like to help YOU overcome yours, which is what this whole question is about. Again, the problem was with me, not the jews, and the problem is with you, not whoever you consider the inferior races. Then this comment was reverted as a troll, but it would be a troll if I were only just pretending to have had this problem and bene able to overcome it: in fact, this is just what happened. I don't see how I can act in any better faith or be more informative than I have been. Of all the responses you have received mine is the only first-hand account of a successful solution to the problem I used to have, which is the same one you have now. Thank you and God Bless. 92.230.65.185 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are not a troll, this is indeed not a counseling center. However, if you are thinking thoughts despite your best efforts not to think them, that is a fairly classic definition of obsessive thinking. You should get medical help. If this is not what you are describing, I admit I have difficulty understanding your point. Which may be another indicator of mental health issues. --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment could be in response to the original question - "Please, make me stop believing in the things white supremacists say". The one thing my comment does that yours doesn't is to actually give the poster tools for stopping believing in white supremacy. I told him: he needs to spend time with hot, stylish, outstanding representatives of the "inferior" races. What do you do? Send him to get medical help. As for whose response is more useful, the original poster can decide. 92.230.65.185 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I thought the issue was yours. Difficult to understand indeed. Hot, stylish, outstanding representatives of inferior races? I missed that. How unfortunate. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I can see how the comment is unclear. I changed it to clarify that I'm not the original poster but someone who has found a solution to this type of problem.

Think of people as individuals rather than members of some arbitrary group. If you're white, there are millions of things that white people have done wrong - Holocaust, slavery, Spanish Inquisition, slaughter of Native Americans, etc.. None of that is your fault because you are an individual. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, Larry the Cable Guy is actually a comedian named Daniel Lawrence Whitney who is simply playing a make-believe character. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah better to compare the previous president and the cur..... ooops did I say something? Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A Class Divided is, PBS claims, one of its most requested documentaries, and follows an Iowa teacher as she gets her all-white class to experience discrimination and prejudice, and then debriefs them. Full details here. Jane Elliott has continued this, by training adults in what racism feels like, since 1968. She would appear to have some success in helping people break their mental chains. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood donation in the third world

I've searched high and low for good references on this, and I can't find anything that satisfies me. I know from various sources that in more or less the entire wealthy world (Western or not), the standard is to have blood donations from folks who volunteer to donate for a community supply. I've read some references, albeit not very helpful ones, that make comments about "replacement donations" being common when that kind of established volunteer supply is unavailable. Most are written with the assumption that the reader knows what they're talking about, and I really only understand the process for the US.

This, as far as I know, could mean one of two things. Let's say Uncle Phil needs a transfusion. You could either 1) donate a unit of blood that is transfused to Uncle Phil or 2) a unit of blood is taken from the supply and you give a unit to replace it and the supply remains at the same total number of units. The first seems more, the second is more likely given the vicissitudes of transfusion medicine where setting up two closely-related people can have grave implications even if the types match (typically not an insurmountable barrier, but one that is sometimes difficult). Which is it? Is it both? What kind of reliable sources are available on the practice? SDY (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure what the "third world" in the title refers to: you seem to be discussing the wealthy (western) world. Secondly, the logistics of blood screening and general processing mean that Uncle Phil will get stock blood, and your blood will be added to the general pool. In the unlikely scenario that you are the only match for Uncle Phil, he will have to wait a little while for his transfusion. Even then, your blood will not be marked "For Uncle Phil". It will be typed and processed, and he might nor even get it. Gwinva (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The "replacement" thing is essentially about billing. The blood recipient (or his insurer) is charged for both the blood he receives (often billed as a "replacement fee") and the various processes entailed in receiving it; if he or others in his name "replace" the blood he is charged only for the processes. Donating blood for elective procedures and earmarking it for a specific recipient is another unrelated issue. - Nunh-huh 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (That is, using your example: Uncle Phil has already had a blood transfusion. He can either pay the replacement fees, or have someone donate the units in his name.) - Nunh-huh 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (Here's a ref, but it's mind-numbingly dull: [1]) - Nunh-huh 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's for the US, which isn't relevant to my question. I'm looking for what happens in countries covered by PEPFAR, for example. The two examples of processes used that I gave exist in the developed world that might be used in place of an established supply, but I do not know if they are analogous to those used in developing countries or which "replacement donation" might apply to. SDY (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So you wonder, then, whether "replacement donation" for some reason means something different in the 3rd world than it does in the 1st? - Nunh-huh 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How the logistics work, and how much of it is "replacement" as opposed to "directed" is unclear in the sources I've seen. I'm not looking for definitions, I'm looking for practices. SDY (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is your second alternative. A unit of blood is taken from the supply, and the patient is requested to ask a friend or relative to donate blood and thereby replace it. See here. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. "Donations from family" in the US almost always means directed donations (the first option) and this is why I was leery of polevaulting to conclusions on this. SDY (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Refugees into Canada

Does anybody know how many refugees from Africa and South Asia, are admitted into Canada each year? Sonic99 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking around, but breakdowns of refugee origin by geographic area are hard to track down. I found this document which gives some total numbers (147,000 total refugees settled in Canada from 2002 to 2007, or an average of 29,400 per year) and the top ten countries of origin: in order, Afghanistan, Colombia, Ethiopia, Burma, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, and Iraq. I'll keep digging. - Eron^Talk 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistics Canada addresses this subject to some extent in the annual Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada. The latest issue covers 2005–2006 (mostly, with some data from later years) and is available in PDF here or in sections in HTML under the other link. Unfortunately, while it provides the total number of refugees each year, its table of immigrants by category and country (table 4.3) only covers the 10 countries providing the most total immigrants, not the most refugees. Here's what that table shows for 2007, by the way:

Country of birth	Economic	Family	Refugees	Other	Total
China and Hong Kong	16,338	10,367	1,583	608	28,896
India	15,335	11,988	848	349	28,520
Philippines	15,191	4,135	36	356	19,718
Pakistan	5,342	2,763	1,324	379	9,808
United States	4,371	3,239	424	716	8,750
Great Britain	5,523	1,579	16	206	7,324
Iran	4,730	1,453	847	165	7,195
South Korea	4,820	790	45	254	5,909
Colombia	1,177	541	3,544	120	5,382
Sri Lanka	747	1,499	1,088	734	4,068

But as you see, that accounts for less than 10,000 refugees or about 1/3 of a typical year's total.

The same report for 2003–2004 comes irritatingly close to answering the question: at one point it says that "four African countries appear on the list of the 10 countries that account for the most refugees in Canada, namely Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo and Somalia. Close to 5,000 refugees came from those countries in 2004, representing approximately 15% of the 32,700 total." It also talks specifically about refugees from the Balkan countries. But no actual list is given.

--Anonymous, 04:45 UTC, March 11, 2009.

Possible scenarios of consequences for an immediate withdrawal of ISAF from Afghanistan

Assuming that all foreign troops in Afghanistan left immediately what would the possible outlook for Afghanistan be? A list of most likely scenarios would be nice. If you know of any good links where experts discuss likely outcomes that would also be appreciated. ExitRight (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is not what the reference desk is about. But perm any from anarchy, tribalism, taliban, civil war. And you cannot consider it in a vacuum; it probably depends a lot on what Pakistan, Russia, Iran and others do next. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"perm" ? StuRat (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Kabul government of Hamid Karzai wouldn't last for long. Afghanistan has traditionally been battled over by their neighbors. Russia likely still has a sour taste from the last time they tried to intervene there, so would probably stay out. That leaves Pakistan and Iran to fight over the Afghan's fate. Since Pakistan is almost a failed state and near civil war itself, I'd expect that Iran, being much stronger since Iraq is no longer a threat, would gain the upper hand eventually. Although, when Iran does start to gain control, that might provide a new incentive for those in Pakistan to work together to defeat them, much as they did to defeat Russia there. We could even conceivably see a time when the US would again support the Taliban, if Iran is taken to be the more serious threat. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"perm, v² colloq. (orig. Brit. gambling.) To make a selection of (a number of items) from a larger number; to make a permutation of, to subject to permutation." (OED). See also Football pools#Winning. --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the first time I've heard it abbreviated and used as a verb like that. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for blind faith

Has anyone attempted to prove through logical argument that blind faith is necessary or desirable? NeonMerlin 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager proposes that one should decide to believe in God because if you're right, you win, and if you're wrong, it doesn't matter. - Eron^Talk 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You only win if your specific religion would be right, imagine the Catholic finding out and jesus was actually a practical jokster who with the help of his 12 henchmen preformed magic shows in the middle-east, and that Judaism was right, they wouldn't win, would they? ;-) chandler · 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say it was a particularly convincing logical argument... - Eron^Talk 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The table at Absurdism#Relationship_with_existentialism_and_nihilism lists some different approaches to this question and points to articles about them. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The clearest argument is Brain in a vat and related arguments. Essentially we have no guarantees that anything we perceive is actually the case; and since all reasoning depends on the human mind (which is fallible) we actually have no guarantees that anything we deduce is correct. Most people adopt the 'blind faith' position that a) there is a reality and b) what we perceive more-or-less corresponds to it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A non-narrative novel that wasn't mean to be read from start to finish?

At some point, I heard about a printed book, which I'll loosely call a novel, which had a structure which encouraged the reader to "dive in", midway through the work, and piece together for themselves the story.

To further probe my hazy memory-- I believe (or else I previously speculated) that the work was somehow analogous to a document dump of some kind-- a series of notes, memos, or files that were presented out of chronological order. Parts of the book would make reference to other parts of the book-- a reader would have to decide for themselves what to read and in what order. When another sub-section of the book was referenced, a reader might choose to go look at the reference sub-section; or they might choose to ignore the reference and continue on reading their initial section; or they might jump back and forth, or might even just randomly turn to any page in the book and try to start parsing the text.

In this way, every reader of the book had a different experience, since ever reader chose their own path through the work.

Does this ring any bells? The concept is really fascinating and I'd love to read the book in question. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Might it be Milorad Pavic's "lexicon novel" Dictionary of the Khazars? Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Could this be Choose your own adventure books? Although, these books would always start at the beginning - you couldn't just open anywhere and start reading, but they would eventually say something like "Does Jimmy run away? If yes, turn to page 47, If no turn to page 16" Rfwoolf (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like an epistolary novel. A particularly labyrinthine example of that, brought to mind by your description, would be House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski, with its footnotes chasing each other and the book generally being a maze of sorts, although you probably couldn't just jump in anywhere. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Julio Cortázar's Rayuela is another example of this sort of metafictional work. There are a number of them; I believe I've even seen a mystery "novel" consisting of a box of facsimile documents and other clues, from which one is to reconstruct the mystery and solution. Deor (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably one of the crime dossiers of Dennis Wheatley.--Rallette (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be something by BS Johnson, such as House Mother Normal or The Unfortunates. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While this may not be what you're thinking of, Lemony Snicket: The Unauthorized Autobiography is another example of that sort of book(a collection of letters, photos, news clippings and the like, often with notes scrawled on them by the compiler). 69.224.37.48 (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Erotic fiction gamebook

The above question made me think of another. I remember reading an interesting example of the genre of gamebooks, which was I think translated from the French and was possibly written by a woman. It was an erotic kind of adventure, but very literary in style. Does anyone know what the book might be? List of gamebooks is no help, by the way. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You might try trawling through the extensive list of gamebook series here to see if anything rings a bell. (I notice that there is a series, of two books, called Create Your Own Erotic Adventure, with one of the books being titled The Classics Professor, which has to be among the least-promising ideas for an erotic adventure I've ever heard of.) Deor (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the prof specializes in Catullus. —Tamfang (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've known a couple of those—not erotic-adventure material, though. Deor (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

sex offender crastration

There's a New York Times article today, Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders that lists a lot of arguments for and against castration of sex offenders. But when I read

“ Although the procedure is voluntary, Mr. Butala said that he believed some offenders felt they had no choice.
“Sex offenders are requesting castration in hope of getting released from a life of incarceration,” he said. “Is that really free and informed consent?” ”

I wondered: wouldn't a simple solution be to offer voluntary castration services, to people who have not yet committed any crime? Then that objection disappears, and all the arguments about "my body my choice" that pro-choice people use regarding abortion would apply. Why isn't this a choice that is even offered? Many sex offenders know full well that acting on their urges are illegal and unethical. Why not give them a choice at castration clinics?

“ I can finally live knowing that I am no harm to anybody," he said during an interview at a McDonald’s here, as children played loudly nearby. "I am living a productive life. I want to tell people that there is help. ”

92.230.65.185 (talk)

Can they not do it voluntarily? I doubt many doctors would do it without sending you for a psychiatric exam first, but I can't see why they would refuse if you are clearly of sound mind and know what you're doing. It would be similar to amputations to cure Body integrity identity disorder, which some doctors will do (although not without some controversy, admittedly), and in this case there is the added benefit of protecting others, so I would expect even more doctors to be willing to do it. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is really a call for debate, which is not what the reference desk is for. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this decidedly not work-safe article in another wiki, "Castration by a doctor is, by far, the safest method of castration, and potentially one of the hardest to achieve. Most doctors will absolutely refuse to perform a voluntary castration upon a patient. However, there are a few medical professionals out there who are open to such ideas. The difficulty lies in both locating them and obtaining the funds for travel as well as the fees they charge. Generally, their fee ranges is $1200-2500." The article deals primarily with voluntary castration for fetish-y purposes; conceivably, it might be easier to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure on a would-be sex offender, but who knows. --Fullobeans (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy it that castration will stop pedophiles. After all, there are women who have sex with children, and they don't have testes. StuRat (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think so either but according to Castration: "Physical castration appears to be highly effective as, historically, it results in a 20-year re-offense rate of less than 2.3% vs. 80% in the untreated control group, according to a large 1963 study involving a total of 1036 sex offenders by the German researcher A. Langelüddeke, among others, much lower than what was otherwise expected compared to overall sex offender recidivism rates." The equivelent of castration in females would be Oophorectomy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The testes produce the chemical that warps men's minds. I remember an interesting interview on This American Life with a female-to-male transsexual who said that as soon as she got on testosterone (at doses much higher than what a normal (non-15-year-old) male receives naturally), a torrent of pornographic fantasies flowed through her mind (not unpleasantly) during all waking hours. --Sean 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sexual drive is not the first motivator of rape and other forms of sexual abuse: power is. Castration is simply a medieval punishment, like blinding. Blinding might be equally effective, don't you think? You might cut their tongues out at the same time, no?--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have studies to back up its effectiveness? (Or your claim of "first motivator? citation needed) Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want citations, you may want to read our article on motivation for rape, for starters. Wetman is correct in that most of the time rape is all about the power dynamic... about humiliation and rage. Especially in cases of the rapist lurking in the bushes and assaulting and raping a passersby, or doing the same to a co-worker or some other acquaintance, that's really not about getting laid. (Statistically speaking, very few rapes are committed by complete strangers.) Likewise, rape that takes place within a relationship or by someone you know well is certainly more about subjugating and humiliating someone or the rapist needing to feel in control than about the actual sexual gratification. That said, simply wanting to have sex can absolutely be the motivator in certain situations, especially in (all-too common) cases where the rapist's judgment is impaired by alcohol and they ignore verbal protests, but don't really resort to violence as such. There's a difference between having appallingly bad judgment and actual malevolence. And I'm not in any way excusing the former, I should probably stress. I just don't think that it's psychologically the same thing as the latter. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But oftentimes sex is about power, too. So if rape is about power, it is at least as much as sex is about power, so rape is at least correlative with, if not absolutely about, sex. In other words, I don't buy the "rape isn't about sex" part of the argument. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Of course rape has a strong sexual element to it, but it's not about sexual gratification (at least in the sense that someone desires an orgasm and resorts to rape to get it). Generally speaking, people don't commit rape out of a desire for sex. Sexual urges tend to shape the urges they feel, sure, but they don't rape someone because they want to have sex. Or to be more blunt about it: "boy, I can't get laid, I'm just gonna have to rape someone 'cause I really need to have sex" may sometimes be the driving force behind a rape, but in the majority of cases, that's nowhere near what it is about. Typically, the rapist is likely to find the rape arousing (and in some cases may even require it to climax), but he's not turned on by the sex itself, he's turned on by the power dynamic, the authority, the victim's pain and fear, by the power fantasy, etc.

You're correct in that sex is oftentimes about power, too, though. That's certainly the case with BDSM, and it's often an element in very conventional sexual relationships, too. But there's a world of difference between acting out a consensual fantasy and actually forcing someone into sex against their will; the power relationships in consensual sexual encounters are not similar to the power relationships in rapes, for the simple reason that there's an element of trust and intimacy in the former, and a violation of trust and unwanted intimacy in the latter. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that someone "forces" someone else to have sex with them because of a perceived or real inability to "persuade" someone else to have sex with them? Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's still about power, Bus stop. What is "force" but a demonstration of power? It is someone saying my right to have sex with you is more powerful, more important, more justifiable than your right not to have sex with me, to be unmolested and safe. Mixing up sex and violence is pretty creepy without complete agreement from all parties. And there is no "right" to have sex, not for anyone, in any circumstance, ever. // BL \\ (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

When a bank is robbed, some sort of power has to be wielded by the bank robber. But the act isn't necessarily performed in order to express one's powerfulness. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. But that's a lot more about the perpetrator's feelings of inadequacy -- that is to say, the power dynamic -- than sexual desire. I mean, if what you really, really want is just sex, there are always prostitutes, and in any case, the urge to, uh, get some just isn't overwhelming enough for the vast majority of men to completely lose all control and sense of right and wrong when they get in the mood.

I'm not saying that no one has ever committed a rape just out of a plain desire to have sex with someone, of course. Sure that's happened -- I guess the most typical example would be a situation where the rapist takes advantage of a victim who's passed out, or the rapist doesn't really fully understand the consequences and implications of his actions because of temporarily impaired judgment or downright stupidity, or -- in some cases -- an inability (real or intentional) to correctly interpret the reactions of a very passive, but unwilling victim. "Well, she said no a couple of times and now she's just lying there rigidly but not resisting or responding, so I guess I can get away with doing this 'cause I really want to have an orgasm." But that's really not what rape is about most of the time. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's "about" power. That doesn't mean it's not "about" sex. It's a false dichotomy to say that this is about power, therefore it is not about sex. Rape isn't really "about" anything. It's sex, it's power, and a whole host of other issues. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. But we're talking about what primarily motivates your average rapist to actually, say, beat someone up and have sex with them against their well, and it's not the desire for sex -- it's power, aggression, all that. They are aroused by that, sure, but the sexual element is more the effect than the cause. And yes, that's a generalization, but it's a fairly accurate generalization. I mean, I'm not just saying that or theorizing here, there's plenty of research that backs this up. (It's not uncommon for men to not even ejaculate during rape.)

The statistics also support this: according to our article on rape, only 2% of all rapes are committed by strangers, whereas over 50% of them are committed by people who are not just acquaintances, but actually close friends, spouses or the like. In a relationship like that, where the rapist knows the victim well, surely it's not primarily about getting their rocks off -- if it was just about the urge to get laid, they'd find someone else instead of hurting someone they care about. The fact that almost all rapists choose people they know is very telling.

(I should probably add that I know there's the classic hardline feminist view of rape, which is, basically, that all sex is rape and it's always about the power male-centered society wields over men, and that's not what I'm talking about. That's a political view, not a psychological one.)

Anyway, I don't really want to get into a much deeper argument than this about the subject -- the research and psychology strike me as conclusive enough to make that kinda pointless. We can agree to disagree. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Captain Disdain, while you have been very loquacious (but cited no sources), you have completed failed to address the topic of why at least one scientific study has shown castration to be effective. Rmhermen (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Killing sex offenders would be 100% effective at stopping them from committing the crime again, and yet we don't do that. There is a certain measure of hmanuity even towards the convicted in most civilized societies; regardless of whether or not castration could be viewed as effective is moot when one considers whether or not it would be just or right for us to do it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's chemical castration. That might be more humane. BTW, if certain offenses can be considered the result of a mental illness (such as pedophilia) can the state order someone to take their medication? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article on motivation for rape has sources, as I already said. As for castration's effectiveness, it's true I haven't addressed that. I admit I wasn't even trying to. Sorry, my bad! In any case, I'm sure castration can be effective much of the time in curtailing pedophilia (and perhaps even rape), but that may be a short-sighted and kind of narrowly defined success. Having a sexual preference for children is unfortunate, and my heart goes out to those poor bastards who, through no fault of their own, suffer from it, because that's lousy hand to be dealt -- if that's how you're wired, you're up for what is likely to be a miserable existence. But my sympathy evaporates pretty quickly when someone acts on that urge.

Now, if you're a person of moral fiber with a tendency towards pedophilic behavior, eliminating your sexual urges altogether strikes me as an understandable solution. I don't know if it's a good solution, but if you just want to get rid of that urge, volunteering to be castrated kind of makes sense. But you may be getting out of the frying pan and into the fire; the psychological problems brought on by such a procedure may outweigh the benefits, at least for the individual in question, but possibly also for the society. In any case, I don't think pedophiles who are that active in seeking solutions for their problem are at the heart of the pedophile problem. Even then, you're not really dealing with the cause, because that's really between the ears, not the legs.

As for forced castration, that has implications other than just whether it works. I mean, you can keep a thief from stealing by chopping off his hands, but that doesn't mean it's a good solution. It's not just a question of coming up with a procedure to stop someone from doing something ever again -- that's not difficult. The challenge lies in coming up with a solution that is also humane and constructive -- in this case, one that keeps people who already tend to feel alienated both by society and even their own urges from becoming even more so. To exaggerate a little, you could put it this way: if you mutilate someone badly enough, that'll probably either break their spirit or drive them to excessive behavior. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Have any two warring nations ever managed to simultaneously capture each other's capital?

Have any two warring nations ever managed to simultaneously capture each other's capital? The closest I can think of is the Korean War. North Korea had captured Seoul, South Korea's capital in June 1950. In Sept, MacArthur launched a successful amphibious invasion. Had MacArthur decided to drive north instead of south, he might have been in a position to occupy North Korea's capital while North Korea occupied South Korea's capital. Obviously, it didn't happen that way but I'm wondering if there's ever been a situation where two warring nations managed to simultaneously occupy each other's capital. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

you mean capital, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.65.185 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for the correction. I fixed my OP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly the situation you asked for, but when at the end of WW2, Berlin surrendered to the Allied forces (Russians mainly) on May 2nd, Germany still occupied the capital of the Netherlands (and perhaps a few other allied countries like Denmark?) for a few days. I can't think of another example immediately. Fram (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one else has managed to come up with anything, so I'm guessing it's never happened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing close to that I can think of was during the Second Punic War. Hannibal's army had virtually conquered Italy, but hadn't quite been able to take Rome itself, meanwhile the Roman army had snuck round through Spain and turned up just outside Carthage. Though in that situation neither side did quite manage to get into the capital itself, but they did both get very close. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

At the end of World War II, Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers in August, 1945, and the Allied forces were in full control in Tokyo by 30 August 1945 at the latest (date of arrival of MacArthur and official start of the Occupation of Japan). While the occupation force was largely American, there was a nominal contingent from the Republic of China, including a commander of the Chinese occupying forces in Japan.

Japanese troops in China officially surrendered to China on 9 September 1945. Until then, Japan was in full control of the Chinese capital by law, Nanjing. The actual transfer of control took some further time to effect.

So, during those 9 days at least, arguably Japan and China were simultaneously occupying each other's capitals. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the term for this feeling?

I'm thinking of the uncomfortable feeling you sometimes get when you read or hear an argument that wildly contradicts what you know(or at least firmly believe), or which you find highly offensive, and yet find it logically and rhetorically convincing. 69.224.37.48 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance. Being able to believe the two contradictory ideas without the uncomfortable feeling is doublethink. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That sense of loyalty applied to an orthodoxy is a symptom of induced cult behavior, by which cults may always be recognized, irrespective of their political power and the number of their followers.--Wetman (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Polands last queen?

Was Elżbieta Szydłowska married to king Stanisław August Poniatowski? And if so, why was she not a queen? Was it a morganatic marriage, and if so, why? --85.226.44.201 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of their articles state that they were married and that it was a morganatic marriage. The articles don't state why, but reviewing the morganatic marriage article suggests that it was because they were not of the same social rank. He was born a Count; she was the daughter of a szlachta- Eron^Talk 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Toronto demographics

I know that Crescent Town neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Bangladeshi-Canadian community, Thorncliffe Park is home to Toronto's largest Pakistani-Canadian community, Woburn is home to Toronto's largest Indian-Canadian and Sri Lankan-Canadian community, Don Valley Village is home to Toronto's largest Iranian-Canadian community, O'Connor-Parkview is home to Toronto's largest Afghani-Canadian community, and Kingsview Village - The Westway neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Somalian-Canadian community. So, what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Arab-Canadian community?, what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Turkish-Canadian community? what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Tajik-Canadian community? what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Azeri-Canadian community? what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Kazakh-Canadian community? what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Uzbek-Canadian community? what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Turkmen-Canadian community? what about which neighbourhood is home to Toronto's largest Kyrgyz-Canadian community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.89 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't automatically generate your questions. It's offputting, to say the least.

If you'll go here and click on a neighborhood name, then on "Social Profile #2 - Language & Ethnicity", you'll be able to see the ethnic makeup of each neighborhood. You can also click on an ethnicity here, under "Ethnic Origins for Toronto CMA", and see a map of where those people live in Toronto. --Sean 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Which other nationals are Americans most similar to in character?

I do not mean similar in GDP or language etc., but in personality, personal style, or character. My guess is Germans. 78.147.91.173 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on what kind of Americans you were talking about. Folks from Pacific Northwest and the Scandinavians would probably line up well, some parts of California with Australia, others with Mexico, Texans and Argentines, Louisiana with those hexagonal folks, etc... Canadians are probably the closest culturally if you absolutely had to choose, but there are some pretty substantial differences. I've actually heard advice for Americans traveling internationally to say that they are from Canada because of the stereotypes about people from the US, which is probably bad for the Canadians. SDY (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

English-speaking Canadians are pretty much the same as Americans, much as they'd like to deny it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not Germans. Well, maybe some folks from the upper east coast might come closer. There are worlds of differences, though. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to be the worst sort of opinion gathering, looking for a confirming of stereotypes. While I am pleased that no one has explained the "why" of their opinion, I really don't think this is Ref Desk material. // BL \\ (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bielle that a direct, opinion-based answer to this question isn't appropriate for the Desk. There are some resources out there that measure international public opinion, though, and the OP might get some of the insight she is seeking into "national character" by reviewing what surveys show about attitudes and opinions in different countries. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is probably a good place to start. - Eron^Talk 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Germans all look like Klaus Nomi. Well ok, no. But it's hard to find similarities even between Americans sometimes; a Chicano in Fresno may have very little in common with a Swedish-American housewife in Minnesota, who will probably not identify too strongly with a Chasid from Williamsburg. Class and ethnic distinctions, even within the same city, can be striking. But if you pick a very stereotypical Joe American, I think he will, regardless of his ethnic background, have more in common with most Europeans (and those from strongly European-influenced nations) than with most of the rest of the world. He'll probably identify most readily with the residents of industrialized former British colonies with high standards of living, and could sit down at a table with residents of Johannesburg, Toronto, Melbourne, Brighton, Glasgow, and Dublin with only minor culture shock. GDP and language, I think, have a lot more to do with personality, personal style, and character than we like to admit. If I had to pick one country, though, and if we ruled out Canada as the obvious choice, I'd pick Australia. And if we ruled out all the Commonwealth Nations on principle, then it gets more difficult, but I'd pick the Netherlands over Germany. --Fullobeans (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it correct that the greatest number of immigrants to the US came from Germany? Not England? 89.243.40.164 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Our articles on German Americans and English Americans claim 8 million Germans and only 3.5 million English immigrants to the U.S. But the yearly figures mentioned in the article seem like they should add up to a higher number for English immigrants - and, of course, it doesn't include Welsh, Scottish, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter article actually says 3.5 million English immigrants after 1776; there were already 2 million in the country, for an estimated total of 5.5 million. English immigration was apparently steady throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries, then peaked in 1842 and subsided. So that's a good long period of fruitful multiplication prior to the German immigration boom of 1848-1914, which brought 6 of those 8 million Germans to the country. That, combined the absence of Welsh/Scots/Irish from the tally, could explain the seeming dearth of English folks from the immigration register. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to explain SDY's characterization of the French as being "Hexagonal"? Astronaut (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Geographical shape of the country? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a French textbook that actually draws a heavily-inked hexagon around a map of the country, because apparently the hexagonality of France is of crucial importance to students of the French language. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

'The hexagon' is a term used to refer to metropolitan France, as it's broadly the shape of... well, a hexagon [2] --Saalstin (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as such features on the French euro coins. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

L'hexagone is a common metonym for France. Which is why we have a redirect from one to the other, and in our article on France, it states "It is often referred to as L’Hexagone (The “Hexagon”) because of the geometric shape of its territory." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)