Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
|
Choose a topic:
See also:
|
Contents
March 24
How exactly did Judas betray Jesus? What exactly was the betrayal?
What exactly does it mean when we say that Judas betrayed Jesus? What exactly was the "betrayal"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- He identified Jesus. Soldiers of the High Priest Caiaphas were after Jesus, wanting to arrest him. Didn;t know what he looked like. Judas, for 30 pieces of silver, pointed him out to the soldiers, by prior arrangement, with a kiss. Something like that. See Judas_Iscariot#Role_as_an_apostle and Judas_Iscariot#Theology --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- (EC) What particularly does Judas Iscariot#Role as an apostle+Judas Iscariot#Betrayal of Jesus, Thirty pieces of silver, [1], Kiss of Judas, Jesus predicts his betrayal, [2] not answer? Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Nil Einne: What kind of a reply is that? I just read (re-read, actually) all of the sections that you cited. They all say -- ad nauseam -- that Judas "betrayed" Jesus. None explained what exactly the "betrayal" was. Which, indeed, was my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- User:Tagishsimon has the story in a nutshell. It is told in all four Gospels, Luke 22 for example.
- 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.... 39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.... 47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
- It does seem a bit odd that Jesus needed pointing out to the authorities in this way, but that's what it says. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- As Alansplodge just pointed out with the actual text, Judas Iscariot led the civil authorities to find Jesus (who was on the lam following the events of the prior week, primarily the cleansing of the Temple). The details of how Judas betrayed Jesus and sold him out to the Authorities are all over the Gospels. If you read the Wikipedia article titled Bargain of Judas, you see the details of the deal. Judas himself goes to the Authorities and offers to sell Jesus out. As to why he did so, the usual explanation is that he was upset over the events at the house of Simon the Leper. Judas had been the unofficial treasurer of The Twelve Apostles (see John 13:29 "Judas kept the money-bag...") The ordering of events in especially Matthew 26:6-14 makes it clear the immediate cause, and events, of Judas's betrayal. At the house of Simon the Leper, a woman anoints the head of Jesus with some expensive perfume; some unnamed disciples see her act as wasteful, since they could have sold the perfume and used the money to feed the poor. Jesus rebukes them, and immediately after this rebuke, Matthew states "Then one of the Twelve—the man called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests." Then being used in the sense of "Because of..." rather than merely "After". --Jayron32 15:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Tagishsimon has the story in a nutshell. It is told in all four Gospels, Luke 22 for example.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We all imagine that Jesus was a famous man at the time, and everyone would know who he was and what he looked like. But that's not the case. He was one of many "religious extremists", as the Romans and Jewish authorities thought of them. It was standard practice to arrest them, force them to recant their beliefs, or execute them if they refused. In contemporary accounts, there's barely a mention of Jesus, with John the Baptist actually being a bit more famous. The fame of Jesus grew following his death, as a result of his followers spreading the word, and in particular, doing so in written form, and in Europe. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks, all. StuRat's answer gets to the heart of my question. (Thanks, StuRat.) So, Jesus was not "famous" (or "infamous") or a "celebrity"; Jesus would not have been well-known and easily recognizable. So, the arresting authorities, while looking for Jesus, would have no idea who Jesus was, even if they tripped over him. Since they did not/could not recognize Jesus, they needed someone (who did recognize Jesus) to give them a "sign" by which to identify Jesus (who was unknown to the arresting authorities). This is the gist of the story, correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Pretty much. Jesus was a moderately well-known person (though apparently not as famous in his own lifetime as John the Baptist), but in the days before photography and what-have-you, people didn't really know what someone looked like unless they personally had got up close to them. Mistaken identity stories make a lot more sense before photography. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, although Luke 20 describes a series of confrontations between Jesus and the chief priests within the Temple precincts, when they tried to find a way to arrest him there "But they were afraid of the people" (v. 19). So it seems that Judas was paid to catch him when he was off guard. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also, of note, is that Jesus wasn't being arrested by the same priests who knew him. Luke notes he was arrested "by the the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders", but it doesn't mention how it played out. I can't imagine an elderly religious man showing up first to arrest a spry 33-year old carpenter from the provinces. Among those listed present at the arrest, the "temple guard" seems likely to have been the ones who were prepared to actually physically grab and restrain Jesus; and the actually arrest is pretty violent; there is a clash of arms and one of the guards has an ear cut off by one of Jesus's apostles. Notably, Matthew 26 presents a slightly different, more detailed, series of events. In that one, the priests themselves don't show up to make the arrest, rather "a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people" That is, the people sent were not necessarily the religious leaders who knew what Jesus looked like directly. Though it also seems to imply that the religious leaders showed up on the scene at some point, and that the actual process of arresting him took about an hour. From the several accounts in the Gospels, the series of events seems to be 1) Crowd of Temple Guards show up, led by Judas, who kisses Jesus to identify him 2) Fight ensues, ear cut off, Jesus heals ear and breaks up the fight, rebuking his disciples for violence 3) Priests and elders show up later, whom Jesus addresses in some of his speech, 4) He's taken to the High Priest's house. --Jayron32 20:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Okay, that makes sense. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also, of note, is that Jesus wasn't being arrested by the same priests who knew him. Luke notes he was arrested "by the the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders", but it doesn't mention how it played out. I can't imagine an elderly religious man showing up first to arrest a spry 33-year old carpenter from the provinces. Among those listed present at the arrest, the "temple guard" seems likely to have been the ones who were prepared to actually physically grab and restrain Jesus; and the actually arrest is pretty violent; there is a clash of arms and one of the guards has an ear cut off by one of Jesus's apostles. Notably, Matthew 26 presents a slightly different, more detailed, series of events. In that one, the priests themselves don't show up to make the arrest, rather "a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people" That is, the people sent were not necessarily the religious leaders who knew what Jesus looked like directly. Though it also seems to imply that the religious leaders showed up on the scene at some point, and that the actual process of arresting him took about an hour. From the several accounts in the Gospels, the series of events seems to be 1) Crowd of Temple Guards show up, led by Judas, who kisses Jesus to identify him 2) Fight ensues, ear cut off, Jesus heals ear and breaks up the fight, rebuking his disciples for violence 3) Priests and elders show up later, whom Jesus addresses in some of his speech, 4) He's taken to the High Priest's house. --Jayron32 20:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, although Luke 20 describes a series of confrontations between Jesus and the chief priests within the Temple precincts, when they tried to find a way to arrest him there "But they were afraid of the people" (v. 19). So it seems that Judas was paid to catch him when he was off guard. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. Jesus was a moderately well-known person (though apparently not as famous in his own lifetime as John the Baptist), but in the days before photography and what-have-you, people didn't really know what someone looked like unless they personally had got up close to them. Mistaken identity stories make a lot more sense before photography. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- In contrast to the canonical gospels, which paint Judas as a betrayer who delivered Jesus to the authorities for crucifixion in exchange for money, the gnostic Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given to him by Christ. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was hanging himself part of those instructions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can read for yourself here [3], an English translation that I found using our article that ABF linked. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any mention of it, but I can understand why this story didn't make it into the Gospels. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even in the canonical Bible, Judas's betrayal is an important and preordained part of God's plan to save the entire human race. I don't know if any modern denomination takes that position, but I think many theologians have historically felt that Judas did more for humanity than most people ever do, and doesn't deserve to be condemned for it. Felix culpa is semi-relevant, though it's about Adam and Eve, not Judas. As Jayron mentioned, three of the canonical gospels give Judas a pretty good motive for turning state's evidence (Ointmentgate), which, together with his remorse and suicide, makes him more of a tragic figure than a villain in this story. If Jesus outright asked him to do it, well, all the more so. -- BenRG (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any mention of it, but I can understand why this story didn't make it into the Gospels. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can read for yourself here [3], an English translation that I found using our article that ABF linked. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was hanging himself part of those instructions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- There seems to be a general problem with predestination, that if God has planned out what everyone will do, then no matter how bad it is, it doesn't seem like anyone can be held responsible for their actions, only God. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't want to link any one, for fear of appearing to endorse any one particular author or theologian, but this google search deals with theodicy as it pertains to Judas. The concept of theodicy (reconciling evil with a perfectly good God) has long been a subject of Christian discourse, and reconciling Judas's culpability for his actions with God's specific plan that Jesus would be crucified, and with Judas's role in it, is certainly a big part of Christian discourse on the matter. It is not an easy subject that lends itself to a terse, simple answer. --Jayron32 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- As an aside, I'll point out that it was not the betrayal of Jesus, for which he could have sought forgiveness, but Judas's suicide which is the reason for his damnation. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Are we told canonically that Judas was damned and is in Hell? Maybe he repented just before he died. How would anyone know? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, officially it is not ours to presume that God can't save whom he wishes, but suicide is unique in that it is a mortal sin, for which, in most cases, it is not possible to seek priestly absolution. I suppose if he had taken a slow-acting poison.... But the point is that while he could have asked Peter to absolve him for betraying Jesus, confession is a bit hard with a rope around your neck.
- Note the last point from the Catholic Encyclopedia, belinked above:
- "Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of."
- "Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God."
- "If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal."
- "Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law."
- "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide."
- "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives."
- μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Are we told canonically that Judas was damned and is in Hell? Maybe he repented just before he died. How would anyone know? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- ... confession is a bit hard with a rope around your neck. Yes, true. But according to dogma, one does not need to attend a church and enter a confessional and kneel and go through the usual "Bless me father for I have sinned" ritual, in order to be forgiven. As long as the sinner is repentant in their heart before the moment of death, they can be absolved. Suicide is a mortal sin, but there are no mortal sins that cannot be forgiven. Nobody could say that Judas never had a moment of repentance before dying. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, my last bulleted point above (beginning "we should not") makes the same general point, although Catholicism holds that proper absolution by a priest guarantees the salvation of the sincere penitent. There are also the concepts of lay baptism and final rights which both include the notion of the absolution of sins for which the dying person would have requested under otherwise non-mortal circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- ... confession is a bit hard with a rope around your neck. Yes, true. But according to dogma, one does not need to attend a church and enter a confessional and kneel and go through the usual "Bless me father for I have sinned" ritual, in order to be forgiven. As long as the sinner is repentant in their heart before the moment of death, they can be absolved. Suicide is a mortal sin, but there are no mortal sins that cannot be forgiven. Nobody could say that Judas never had a moment of repentance before dying. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If recess appointments can simply be rescinded, what is the big deal about them? Why the controversy?
So, a US President can make a recess appointment if he wants, when Congress is in recess. However, at some subsequent time, that appointment still needs to be approved by the Senate. So, what exactly is the big deal? If the Senate does not like the recess appointment, they just choose to withhold their "consent". I don't get why this is a big deal. And what exactly is the controversy? In other words, if the Senate can simply "undo" the appointment, why is there always such a big flak when a recess appointment is made? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even though in theory the Senate has exactly the same amount of power to approve/disapprove someone's appointment, whether he or she has already started on the job or not, politically speaking, if there is a vacant position, you can justify not approving the person because you are not entirely happy with the person, whereas if the person has already been appointed, you have to justify why you are so unhappy with him or her as to remove them. So politically, the bar becomes different.
- It's like how on Wikipedia, if there is an edit war about whether an article should exist or just be a redirect, if you can get an administrator to protect the page at your preferred version, then in practice you get a rhetorical advantage in the subsequent discussion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose another part of it is that the recess appointee has whatever powers come along with the job. When they exercise these powers, they are using powers that are usually allocated by the senate without senate's approval. The intent though is that there are some positions in government agencies that simply must be filled - and if they are in recess and cannot approve someone, there has to be a mechanism to get the job done. Whether you consider this abuse or "what the framers of the constitution intended" (and therefore, perfect and beyond reproach) seems to be a matter of who is being appointed, by whom and to which office. SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The concept of a recess appointment is as a fait accompli. That is, while technically the Senate could rescind the appointment, the disruption caused by doing so is likely to make it unwise in all but the most contentious appointments. Presidents usually do avoid making recess appointments where there is anticipated, actionable objection over the actual job performance of the appointee, or where the position is extremely high-level (Supreme Court, Cabinet level, etc.) Where a President faces an obstructionist congress, where candidates are being ignored or where the Senate refuses to consider any appointments at all, recess appointments become a means to put them into a necessary job and get them working. Then it forces the Senate to act, and have an "up or down" vote on the appointment. If the appointment is made while the Senate is in session, they can simply refuse to act on the appointment, that is they can hold up the appointment by basically ignoring the President, i.e. Merrick Garland. Now, at his level, he'd never be a recess appointment. But for lower-level positions (non-cabinet level senior civil servants, lower court judges) recess appointments can be used for similar situations. --Jayron32 15:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- In theory a recess appointment Supreme Court justice could make a decision the Senate doesn't like, before they remove him. For this reason, the Senate has ways of pretending they are in session, when they are not, so no recess appointments can be made. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So, removing all political concerns, and just focusing on mechanics and logistics: if Obama does a Supreme Court recess appointment to fill Scalia's seat, the Senate can get rid of that new Justice eventually. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- And if they have a Republican president, they probably would. But, if they have Democratic president, they might find it better to stick with the moderate they know than risk a liberal. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it common or rare for recess appointments to be made and later rescinded? I am not talking about the Supreme Court solely, but all appointments. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:WHAAOE: See Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts. --Jayron32 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- And for the record, BTW, the highest level recess appointment which was rejected, that I can find was Chief Justice John Rutledge, who was rejected by the Senate after service for several months as Chief Justice of the United States. AFAIK, he is the only top-level official (Cabinet Level or Supreme Court) who was so rejected. --Jayron32 19:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Jayron32: Thanks. But, I have two questions. (1) That list you linked indicates about 30-some unsuccessful appointments. But that has no context, unfortunately. Were there 30 unsuccessful and 10,000 successful? Or were there 30 unsuccessful and 2 successful? Which goes back to my question of whether it is common or rare to rescind the recess appointments. Do we have any idea? Also: (2) Why is Rutledge omitted from the link you offered about unsuccessful appointments? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Third question, actually. I just noticed that that link is for unsuccessful appointments to the federal courts only. Do we have any other similar lists for other types of appointments (i.e., other than federal courts)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I doubt one could find one. The number of total Presidential appointed positions numbers in the thousands, according to this the President is responsible for appointing some 7000 people, with an average time of 2.5 years in their position, that means that Obama would have had to appoint the same position some 2-3 times during his presidency. The logistics of managing such appointments means that some large number of them would have been recess appointments. There have literally been hundreds of thousands of presidential appointments, and I don't known that anyone has ever done a complete analysis on them. Very few (even in a contentiously divided government such as the U.S. has now) would have not been approved by the Senate. Most of these are probably managed in batches and voted on with little review. It's only the politically visible appointments that generally become the subject of Senate confirmation hearings, or which become contentious. --Jayron32 00:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. Why is Rutledge omitted from the list you linked above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why is he omitted from that chart/table? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Because he was not rejected for appointment as a U.S. District Court judge. The table is started with the following explanatory sentence: "Rejected recess appointees to the United States district courts are as follows:" The Chief Justice of the United States does not sit on a United States district court. --Jayron32 03:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. That article needs some work. For one, the chart does not match the title of the article. The title is Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts (not to simply district courts). Also, the heading of that section is misleading (Unsuccessful recess appointments by type). What "type"? Thanks for pointing out the article, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Just a side note on the broader topic that some may find interesting... In Jefferson's administration, the total number of appointments in the entire executive branch (including all army and navy officers) consisted of less than 1000 people. It was a lot easier for the Senate to give actual "advice and consent" about every appointee in those days. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Lost admiral
I'm looking for a free-to-use image of Admliral Sir George Augustus (George Augustus) Elliot KCB RN (1813 to 1901) for an article. I had used this one, but although it has the Admiral's name in the "Summary" it is clearly a picture of Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto (who was actually George's cousin) and the image has been correctly deleted from my article, Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom. Can anybody find something to replace it please? Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
March 26
Why does the Roman Catholic Church not allow Mass on Good Friday?
Why does the Roman Catholic Church not allow Mass on Good Friday? I read the Good Friday article; it was not helpful for my purposes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mass (Catholic Church) says: By long tradition and liturgical law, Mass is not celebrated at any time on Good Friday (but Holy Communion is distributed, with hosts consecrated at the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, to those participating in the Celebration of the Passion of the Lord) or on Holy Saturday before the Easter Vigil (the beginning of the celebration of Easter Sunday), in other words, between the annual celebrations of the Lord's Supper and the Resurrection of Jesus (see Easter Triduum).
- Do you need a reference for that liturgical law? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- My question was "why"? In other words, what's the reason/rationale? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks. Yes, I did a Google search. Came upon the same sites that you linked. They really didn't make much sense to me. Sounded like a lot of gobbledygook. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but the gist of it seems to be in the quote from Thomas Aquinas in the second link; "...this sacrament [the Mass] is a figure and a representation of our Lord's Passion, as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament is not consecrated." In other words, on the day when the Passion itself is re-enacted in the liturgy, there is no need for a liturgical re-enactment of a memorial to the Passion. Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I did a Google search. Came upon the same sites that you linked. They really didn't make much sense to me. Sounded like a lot of gobbledygook. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That sort of makes a little sense. It's like mental gymnastics. I will have to think it through and digest it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- See the Catholic Encyclopedia which says
The omission of the Mass proper marks in the mind of the Church the deep sorrow with which she keeps the anniversary of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Good Friday is a feast of grief. A black fast, black vestments, a denuded altar, the slow and solemn chanting of the sufferings of Christ, prayers for all those for whom He died, the unveiling and reverencing of the Crucifix, these take the place of the usual festal liturgy; while the lights in the chapel of repose and the Mass of the Presanctified is followed by the recital of vespers, and the removal of the linen cloth from the altar ("Vespers are recited without chant and the altar is denuded").
Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
How do British gentlemen's clubs get away with discrimination?
There are many gentlemen's clubs (of the traditional kind, not those with the girls dancing) in the UK that are "men only." Some won't only bar female members, but won't even allow female visitors. Does this behavior collide with British anti-discrimination laws? Did they have a special provision due to the traditional nature of these establishments? --Scicurious (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- AFAIK, that used to be the case, but is no longer the case. The Equality Act 2010 now makes it illegal to discriminate (including excluding admission/membership) on grounds of disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race – this includes ethnic or national origins, colour and nationality, religion or belief – this includes lack of belief, sex, and sexual orientation. There are very limited exceptions - a club for deaf women could exclude hearing men, for instance. Further info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- See this from the CAB. Basically, if the group/club/association is created to only cater to one group (deaf people, lesbians, the over 65's, men) it can bar people who are not part of that group as long as it doesn't breach any other part of the act or related acts that it is not exempt from (by banning due to race for instance). Schedule 16 of the Equality Act 2010 is the relevant part "An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic." Defined protected characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender assignment/reassignment, Marriage/Civil partnership, Race, Religion/belief, Sex and finally Sexual orientation. Religions are excepted from certain sections of the law. Under the exceptions, it is also not discriminatory for the Women's Institute to exclude men from holding membership. Nanonic (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the traditional comparison is with women-only swimming, which is also allowed under this clause. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not just swimming - there seems to be quite a lot of sports that men are excluded from. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I believe the traditional comparison is with women-only swimming, which is also allowed under this clause. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm all for gender equality and I think my record proves that. The reason why I think Gentlemen Clubs still exist, is that Gentile Women find no desire to encroach into a club were members are more intent on discussing what Clive of India should or should not have done etc.. yet if a club has activities that they can relate to (i.e., golf), then sure, they ought to be included as one of the old boys. My only objection to that is, they exhibit this very unfair famine ability to hit the ball straight onto the green, despite a fierce cross wind against their favour . Men don't rely on the Greek Goddess Νίκη to help them out in theses situations. Very unfair and simply not not cricket. And the way they wave their four-irons at me is also very ungentlemanly. A mild difference in view point should only warrant pistols at dawn. Not a bloody duel with handbags flying everywhere on the ninth tee! That’s sacrilege. We (some of us ) are still English and hope to remain civilized. And what is about the ninth tee that gets women so fraught? Is this something to do with the Greek goddess Gaia? How does nine come into this? Gosh, I don't know what they teach them in these expensive fee paying schools these days. But I bet they don't have on their curriculum cricket. . Jolly hockey sticks is no substitute. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You won't find many Gentile women in a synagogue, either. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's the same liberty which allows the Girl Guides to exclude boys. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Survey type
Is there a single term to describe a questionnaire type that includes the following information: education levels, marital status, gender, profession?--Catlemur (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would consider those demographic questions (see [8], [9], and demographic analysis). clpo13(talk) 17:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, the term sort of slipped out of my mind.--Catlemur (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- A census typically includes demographic questions. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Flat issue
A person possess a disability and is unable to work. If the following is not considered a legal advice, than, what are the possibility for him/her getting a flat in a quite area in UK under governments help without having to possess a disability badge? -- Apostle (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- See Disability in the United Kingdom, Disability Living Allowance, and Housing Benefit. The range of accommodation available will depend (a) on where the person wants to live, and (b) on the nature of their disability - it's not a question that can be answered in general terms, but. yes, there is a statutory duty on local authorities to provide suitable accommodation. See also Disabled parking permit for disability badges - they're much easier to obtain than accommodation, so if the person isn't entitled to a badge, it's very unlikely they'll be entitled to a flat. Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A flat is another word for apartment. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The OP asked about UK regulations, US terminology is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Fgf10 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Is there any possible way whatsoever one-self can get an accommodation place/residential unit, pay off the government thereafter, if possible? -- Apostle (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
March 27
Japanese flag ratio
Flag of the Philippines says:
The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc, shifted 1% left of centre, on a white field.
Flag of Japan says:
The law decreed the disc to be in the center, but it was usually placed one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist.
Which one is correct? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Before 1999, both. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Note that "1% left of centre" is the same as "one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist", since the hoist (the side of the flag attached to the pole) is conventionally shown on the viewer's left. Alansplodge (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I guess I'm having problem understanding the sentence "The law decreed the disc to be in the center, but it was usually placed one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist."
- Does it mean:
- 1. The law says dead center. The law also says shifted 1⁄100 towards the hoist is fine.
- 2. The law says dead center. In practice though, it's usually shifted 1⁄100 towards the hoist, against what the law says.
- I'm not sure which interpretation is correct. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The second interpretation is correct.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then isn't the quoted part of the Flag of the Philippines article wrong? It should probably say something like: "The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc centered on a white field. Though in practice the sun-disc is erroneously shifted 1% left of center in some flags." Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, "Appeared" does not mean "as defined in law". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. My point is that Flag of the Philippines should probably be more about Flag of the Philippines as defined as law than The Appearance of the Flag of the Philippines. Of course the article should cover both de jure and de facto facts about the flag, but the de jure information should probably be mentioned first and foremost.Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, "Appeared" does not mean "as defined in law". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then isn't the quoted part of the Flag of the Philippines article wrong? It should probably say something like: "The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc centered on a white field. Though in practice the sun-disc is erroneously shifted 1% left of center in some flags." Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The second interpretation is correct.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This part about the dot moving 1/100 also intrigued me. What would be the reasons that -- in practicality -- they would choose to shift the dot a little? (1) It would seem to me easier to just place it dead center, no? (2) Also, it's such a negligible amount that I assume no one notices the difference. So why bother? Plus, (3) you are actually breaking the law. And who knows what affect that may have. What's the point? Why risk breaking the law? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's entirely in accordance with traditional Japanese aesthetics though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- This part about the dot moving 1/100 also intrigued me. What would be the reasons that -- in practicality -- they would choose to shift the dot a little? (1) It would seem to me easier to just place it dead center, no? (2) Also, it's such a negligible amount that I assume no one notices the difference. So why bother? Plus, (3) you are actually breaking the law. And who knows what affect that may have. What's the point? Why risk breaking the law? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- @Andy Dingley: I have no idea what that means. I know nothing about Japanese aesthetics. Can you clarify what you mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exact symmetry being the essence of beauty is very much a Western notion, from the time of Vitruvius. Much Japanese proportion is based on deliberate asymmetry and the choice instead of a pleasing ratio between differing parts. There is also an acceptance of imperfection (see wabi sabi) and an enjoyment of how it introduces interest into dull Western symmetries and uniformities. So even when "the circle goes in the middle", the Japanese approach would still be to shift it slightly. It doesn't even need to be visible, or to be recognised by the viewer: in some cases it's enough that the maker knows they're making something of more sophistication than barbarian symmetry. This isn't the Islamic notion that only God makes perfection, but rather an idea that simple perfection is too simple and thus uninteresting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I have no idea what that means. I know nothing about Japanese aesthetics. Can you clarify what you mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Andy Dingley: Thanks. OK, that all makes sense. Why, then, would the law itself dictate symmetry? Why didn't they just add in the "1/100 deviation" into the law? That seems odd, given what you say about how important asymmetry is to the culture. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since the 1860s, Japan has been a tension between tradition and modernisation (i.e. Westernisation). There are many examples from the pre-WWII Shōwa era, a time of Japanese nationalist resurgence, where contradictions manifest themselves. This is very often the case around military matters, where the military were simultaneously espousing nationalist virtues and also seeking the efficiencies of Western modernism: so there were problems needing shorter dirks, rather than an officer's sword, in order to fit into modern aircraft cockpits, or (almost ludicrously) the requirement that the bridge of a first-line warship would be commanded in Bungo, despite the shortage of non-noble junior officers who were fluent in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Thanks. OK, that all makes sense. Why, then, would the law itself dictate symmetry? Why didn't they just add in the "1/100 deviation" into the law? That seems odd, given what you say about how important asymmetry is to the culture. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I can't find a source too easily but the famous Itsukushima Shrine that's on the cover of many tourist guides of Japan was built with one minor mistake to avoid offending the gods or being as good as them or something like that. It's perfect except for one piece of wood under the roof I think that breaks the symmetry. Possibly that's why people do that to the flag. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Rather than some orientalist mumbo-jumbo, I think it's far more likely that the sun disc is shifted because otherwise an optical illusion would result from the way the hoist end is attached to the flag pole that would make the disc look like it's off-centre, given the white background. Similar to the adjustment to the proportions of the tricolour in France. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Do old people get judged faster?
For example, [Redacted for BLP reasons]. Is his case processed faster, just in case he is indeed considered guilty but kicks the bucket before they can put him in prison?--Scicurious (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the name of your example; it's not necessary for your point, and there are no criminal charges in that case anyway. But basically, no, there is no mechanism of which I am aware in US law by which any trial would be sped up on such grounds, and in a civil suit, the estate can be found liable regardless of whether the defendant is a decedent. You might be able to get a judge to speed up gathering exculpatory evidence, but it is the defendant, not the plaintiff who has the inherent right to a speedy trial. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on WP:BLP, but I don't see how mentioning the name of the individual in question violates it, in this particular case. We have an article on the individual here on wikipedia, the allegations have received widespread publicity in reliable sources (and are referred to in our wikipedia article on the individual), and the OP is not making any defamatory imputations. He does not suggest the person is guilty, merely "just in case he is indeed considered guilty". How does this violate BLP? Eliyohub (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- To answer the OP's question, though, in a criminal case, if an accused person in that situation is out on bail, he or she is obviously going to have a huge incentive to delay the proceedings for as long as possible, to extract maximum mileage from the relatively "good" years they have left - and all the more so if a guilty verdict means they'll likely die in prison, given their age. Whilst judges have said that the concept that "justice delayed is justice denied" does not only apply to defendants (prosecutors, too, are entitled to timeliness, although this does not rise to a constitutional right), in practice, I don't see them speeding up cases simply to stop a person "escaping" punishment through dying a natural death. But like any criminal case, regardless of the age of the accused, the judge will insist that there be no deliberate unwarranted stalling by the accused or their lawyers if he or she (the judge, that is) can help it. Eliyohub (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- In civil cases, I could certainly imagine a judge possibly giving such a case a "priority listing", so that the defendant can give sworn evidence before they die or start losing their memory. True, the plaintiff could sue the estate regardless even if the defendant was dead. However, the estate would be unfairly disadvantaged in attempting to defend any such claim without the defendant (the key figure) being able to give sworn evidence, and be cross-examined. So in the case of the man you mentioned (who's in his late 70's), for example, the judge may well try to hold a hearing of the defendant's evidence (the bit where he personally testifies and gets cross-examined) ASAP, in fairness to him. In some jurisdictions, such evidence and cross-examination can be given in court and officially video recorded, so it could be replayed to the trial judge or jury in the later event of a trial (e.g. in the interim, the defendant's memory or mental state has deteriorated due to dementia, or he is no longer alive). The rest of the trial itself need not be held at the time, and may have to wait for its' turn in the court system. The wheels of justice can grind slowly, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal matters, not civil ones, I think. Eliyohub (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer.
mentioning this BLP is not necessary to the question, and the charges have been stayed on appeal by the superior court |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
-
-
- My understanding is the same as Eliyohub's: There is normally no special effort to speed up a trial just because the defendant is aged. After all, aged defendants are not all that unusual anyway, especially in civil cases. John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of correcting what I assume to be a spelling mistake on your part. What about my question of fairness to the aged defendant, in civil cases, where any delay may allow them to develop dementia or die, and thus be unable to testify in their own defense? Am I correct in saying that there may be legal mechanisms for pre-trial hearings (in court, with a judge, with cross-examination) of the defendant's testimony? Or would the judge agree to speed up the trial to avoid this happening (the defendant dying or losing his memory)? The guardian (in the case of dementia) or estate (in the case of death) would be severely disadvantaged in contesting the lawsuit without this testimony, so doesn't fairness dictate that the judge take this into consideration? Eliyohub (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding is the same as Eliyohub's: There is normally no special effort to speed up a trial just because the defendant is aged. After all, aged defendants are not all that unusual anyway, especially in civil cases. John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Senate approval for appointments to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
The Federal Reserve holds enormous power. Its board of governors, particularly the chair (now that the position is held by a woman, "chairman" is gone), have huge influence on the U.S. and world economy. My question is, have presidential appointments to the board ever get stuck in the senate? When is the last time (if ever) that the senate actually held formal confirmation hearings (or put up any sort of fuss or delay) for either a presidential appointment to the board, or for a presidential promotion from the board to the chair? Or have presidential appointments to these positions always enjoyed pro forma senate approval? Eliyohub (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- As recently as last year the senate held up presidential nominations to The Fed. --Jayron32 14:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- A better question might be, "When was the last time -- if ever -- the Senate approved a Fed Chair without first holding formal confirmation hearings; and, is such a thing even constitutional?" DOR (HK) (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse my ignorance of U.S. politics regarding fed appointments. If you say Senate confirmation hearings for them are universal, I believe you (I was unsure of this). In fact, I see that every presidential appointment subject to senate approval in theory gets a confirmation hearing, even if only a "routine" one which takes minutes, or covers dozens (or hundreds) of potential appointees at once. But why in heaven's name would skipping them be unconstitutional? Firstly, the Fed, unlike the Supreme Court, is a legislative creation, not a constitutional one. There's nothing in the constitution which dictates the operations of the fed, is there? To quote the constitution, the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers (i.e. officers other than Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and Judges of the Supreme Court), as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. In practice, fed appointments legally need senate approval, but if congress were to pass a law abolishing this requirement, how would it break the constitution?
- Also, even for the Supreme Court, do the confirmation hearings themselves have any constitutional status? If theoretically, the Senate simply went straight to a vote ("consent" in constitutional terms), without any debate, how would this violate the constitution? According to our earlier question on recess appointments, the President appoints some 7000 appointees subject to senate approval each year, and most are approved en masse in batches, first by the relevant committee, then by the whole senate. Why would appointments for the fed be any different, from a perspective of constitutional law - a simple, no-debate vote being all that's needed? (ignoring the politics). Or would the constitution oblige the holding of a "hearing" by the Senate banking committee, even if only a pro forma, routine, 5 minute one? Eliyohub (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
March 28
Eugene V. Debs
In wiki article above it says that Eugene V. Debs got 919,799 write-in votes (3.4%)in the american presidency election 1920. I found no article that says he is a write-in candidate. So is the information "write-in votes" above reliable? DanGong (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- This has the votes for that election, which is in turn cited to a reliable government publication. I would check the original U.S. government publication for the official results, and use that as the source to alter the numbers if you wish. --Jayron32 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Jayron, I'm sorry, that I have no access to that page. Please check if you can find the information that Debs a write-in candidate, or at least the votes are really write-in votes. I have translated the article Socialist Party of America into Vietnamese and want to be sure that the information is right. DanGong (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Are the fat printed parts from the article Eugene V. Debs acceptable? "He received 919,799[43] write-in votes (3.4%),[44]" DanGong (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since the second reference doesn't state they were "write-in" votes, I'd take that part out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Britannica makes no mention of write-ins for 1920.[15] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Baseball Bugs and Clarityfiend, thank you for your help. I will delete "write-in" if noone opposes it. It isn't a big deal if it not going to appear in "Did you know" in wiki vietnamese as it is a new article and it is something very unusual for us that someone is in prison and still candidates for a public post. DanGong (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Names for the Left
On the Republican side, far right is "conservative," center right is "establishment" or "reformican". On the left, it's liberal and progressive. Which one is farther left? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would disagree with your wording. Far-right is ultra-conservative, center-right is conservative and establishment, center-left is liberal or progressive and establishment, far left is ultra-liberal. For example, both John Boehner and Hillary Clinton are establishment. I would say that leftist also means far left, but some might say it also includes the moderate left. Loraof (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- For far right, there is also the term "reactionary", which means wanting to return to the way things used to be (racial segregation, banning homosexuality, etc.) StuRat (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean for the USA? Terminology can be very different in different places. E.g. what is called centrist in the USA may be considered squarely to the right in EU. Anyway Left–right_politics#Contemporary_usage_in_the_United_States has some info, see also political spectrum. Using a single left/right spectrum is also very limiting, and based on historical happenstance of seating arrangements around the French Revolution. For a more nuanced take on describing political stances and platforms, see political compass. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I did phrase the question badly. What I really wanted to know was what you think."Liberal" is a term commonly used in the '60s in America to refer to the political left. In the '90s the Republicans succeeded in framing US politics and one result was that "liberal" was called the L word, and the Republican pressure caused the Democrats to stop using "liberal." It was replaced by "progressive." But now "liberal" is coming back, and "progressive" is still used. Now, maybe there is some sort of jargon web site that would address the issue, but I doubt it. So I was interested in what you would say. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah. So you are primarily interested in the current meanings of "liberal" and "progressive" in American politics, yes? We are not really here to share opinions, but you might get some people offering them nonetheless. You are not alone in thinking that "progressive" is a mainly a new term for "liberal" after using "liberal" became seen as a liability in some circles. However, it is not necessarily that simple, and to conflate the terms may be doing a disservice to progressive politics. See our article on Progressivism#Contemporary_mainstream_political_conception, and here [16] [17] are some nice current discussions on liberalism vs. progressivism from journalists. Here's some nice CNN coverage of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debating what "progressive" means to them [18]. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- In US politics, both "liberal" and "progressive" are just labels used by and about people to the left, mainly associated with the Democrat Party. The words have no real meaning outside that usage. Hence none of them are further left than the other. They basically just mean "left", on the sadly one-dimensional political scale in the US. We see this happening again, thanks to Bernie Sanders, people are starting to use the word "socialist" as somebody who supports Bernie Sanders, and the opinions that get attached to the word is the desire to have a welfare state, originally a conservative invention (while at that time many socialists correctly attacked the welfare state as an attempt of pacifying the workers to try to avoid a socialist revolution). The only real conclusion you can draw of all this is that US politics have a tendency of misusing words and using them as the direct opposite of their original meaning, leaving the words effectively meaningless. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- "US politics have a tendency of misusing words ...", as when some people (mostly members of the Republic Party) insist on referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party". Deor (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, lol, sorry for the misspelling. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you've ever watched Fox News, their editorial position is that Democrat = Liberal = Progressive = Socialist = Communist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- "US politics have a tendency of misusing words ...", as when some people (mostly members of the Republic Party) insist on referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party". Deor (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
See Congressional Progressive Caucus. The CPC’s policy agenda includes such crazy far-left ideas as economic justice, national security, civil rights, peace, environmental protection, universal healthcare, labor unions, campaign finance reform, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, legalization of same-sex marriage and energy independence.[/sarcasm]. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Who is guilty of what? (Parable of the Six Welders)
There has been a lot of debate in recent years about when conspiracy cases against terrorist wannabes go too far. One principle I've been going by concerns a hypothetical situation leading to a gruesome accident. It goes like this:
A new hire, the Sixth Welder, walks into a welding shop, and the existing employees are upset. It is clear that he works for much less than they do, and knows nothing about welding, not even how oxygen works. One thing leads to another, and the First Welder tells him, "You know, acetyoxy is just acetylene fuel and oxygen fuel. If you take a toke of it and breathe out past a lighter, you can lay waste to stuff like a fire breathing dragon..." Being instinctively suspicious, he asks the Second Welder a few times if this guy is shittin' him, and each time he says no, no, that's how it works, everybody does this. The Third Welder doesn't say anything about the science, but starts folding up a paper chicken on his own and drawing rings with point values "10, 20, 30" on a backboard he sets up behind it. The Fourth Welder makes no articulate comment, but occasionally yells "Yeah!" and "Woo-Hoo!". The Fifth Welder, the former shop steward before the plant deunionized, says nothing, just stays seated, sipping his coffee and watching the proceedings until the Sixth Welder's lungs explode.
Now my personal impression is that all the welders, having been in some way present at this event and choosing to take no action to stop it, share culpability for the act. This is the basis for an idea that proper adjudication of conspiracy is not actually related to speech at all; that one can conspire without saying a word. A similar example would be that steering a drone to drop bombs on New York can be an entirely innocent activity if you think it's an online video game, but the moment you know it's real it's a crime.
However --- I have no idea what the law would adjudicate for such things. Is there a way to predict that without actually waiting for this exact thing to happen and seeing what they decide? Wnt (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I asked a question a while back [19], and I think some of the refs I got about how the law may deal with multiple dependent or independent causes may help you with this case too. In particular Breaking_the_chain may or may not apply to welders 2-5. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Crimes of commission" (where you do something bad) are usually punished more harshly than crimes of omission. However, the later are sometimes prosecuted, such as charging somebody with negligent homicide who failed to save a life when they could have. Note that good Samaritan laws are often needed to protect people who, acting in good faith, try to help. For example, so somebody who breaks a rib while performing the Heimlich Maneuver can't be sued. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- IANAL but here goes. Moral culpability and legal culpability do not always match up. The 'former shop steward' who may no longer be the welders overseer nor foreman should never the less be in a position of recognising dangerous behaviour. In Europe, one is considered to have a duty to intervene when dangerous horse-play takes place. Just by pointing out the foolishness is often enough to make the provitures realise, that at bad out-come will place their prior behavour under the scrutiny of both the police, coroner, and many other folk. Your next example of some naïve sole dropping bombs is not to my mind a good follow-on comparison. However, naïve he may be, he would still be considered one of the agents (that for all we know, may end up improving the New York skyline). He would have to plead mitigating circumstances – that he truly believed he was taking part in an innocent game. America likes its pound of flesh and if he is black and is no relation the Kennedy family or some such, then he has no hope with that defence either, however naïve. Remember, he will be tried in a court of Law not in a court of Justice. --Aspro (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
What if no one wins an election?
I got to thinking about elections with only one candidate, such as the 2007 presidential election in Syria where Bashar al-Assad was the only candidate, and people could only vote "yes" or "no" for him. Of course, pretty much everyone voted "yes". But what if the result had been "no"? I imagine that in reality, al-Assad would still have been elected. But in principle, if such a result occurs, what should be done, at least in theory? JIP | Talk 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- See Election fraud. That will never happen. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- What is supposed to happen, according to the theory, is "election fraud". You have two different situations: 1) True representative democracy, which follows rules and allows for the possibility (and even the likelyhood) that those in power will eventually get voted out and their opponents will win, and we'll try something new for a while, and see how that goes. Then you have 2) Absolute dictatorship which has the veneer of elections, but the elections are supposed to be a sham, they exist merely to say "Look, we have elections", but the INTENT is merely to add a layer of propaganda to the illusion of democracy. Everyone knows that the purpose of the elections is to simply concentrate more power into the hands of the powerful dictator. That's what is SUPPOSED to happen according to those systems. They either cheat, or make liberal use of moving the goal posts (see, for example, Russian power-switching operation 2008) to ensure that the power of the elite is concentrated in their personal hands, without regard for democratic principles. What is SUPPOSED to happen in Syria, according to the way that those in power have set up the system, is that Assad and his cronies are to be in power forever, TYVM, and the entire system makes sure that happens all the time. That is the way it is designed to work. --Jayron32 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- In some cases there is no plan. In others, there may be a formal or informal understanding that the leader will step down and allow others to run in a follow-up election. Thus, it appears somewhat similar to a no confidence vote or recall elections under legit democracies. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- In British tradition, some elections (mostly board or leadership elections within organisations like political parties and student unions) include a "Re-open nominations" option (RON), which is like the "NO" option but with a more explicit explanation of what happens next. Apparently RON has only won once in a student union election - just a few weeks ago at LSE. Smurrayinchester 11:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Uhm. In the past when UN officials have been invited to adjudicate over sensitive elections, they often find that when most X voters vote NO there is a magical appearance of Y voters who vote Yes. Adding two together gives a sum greater than the whole voting population. So, I think the procedure is to print more voting forms than is required and leave it to the winning party fill them in themselves, until they can justly and democratically claim a majority win on a very fair and open election.--Aspro (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- My favorite story like that is in one election, where the winning side got 3 times the nation's population in votes, easily beating the losers, who only got twice the nation's population in votes. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You may be thinking of Zimbabwe election: twice as many registered voters as people in some areas (July 2013). Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- My favorite story like that is in one election, where the winning side got 3 times the nation's population in votes, easily beating the losers, who only got twice the nation's population in votes. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has an article on EVERYthing. For legitimate, democratic elections where no one wins, see None of the above. Short answer: it's an option in a lot of ballots, but the 'none' vote pretty much never wins. Most ballot laws provide that if 'none' were to win, the election would re-run with new candidates. --M@rēino 21:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
March 29
Hoelderlin poem
Hi, could someone tell me where I could find Hölderlin's 'Friedensfeier' full poem? Thanks, Uhlan talk 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)