Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 14

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

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

< July 13 Humanities desk archive July 15 >

Torture on 24

Has Jack Bauer ever tortured anyone who honestly didn't know anything? If so, would that make him a bad person? —Keenan Pepper 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your first question, but to your second question: Jack is a fictional character. You can hardly judge whether he us a good or bad person by whether his actions work out in a fictional world. That is not decided by his moral character, but rather by how the writer wants to portray him. A better test is whether someone who acted the way he did would end up torturing someone who was innocent in real life. Judging by how self assured he seems in the wikipedia article, I would say that he certainly would. So, if you think that torturing someone who is innocent because you are wrong and arrogant makes you a bad person, then yes, Jack Bauer would be a bad person if he was real. --Crazywolf 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, anyone who tortures other people is a bad person. No good person has ever tortured anyone. In fact, even just saying a good person is torturing you, can only refer to your being a stalker. (e.g. you are referring to the fact that you have no contact with the "good person", they are a celebrity who doesn't answer your psychotic mail, and by "torture" you mean your obsession with them is torturing you.). Hope this helps. 82.131.188.227 09:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

What about the "good" people who say you can't drink, you can't smoke, you can't listen to rock, you can't dance, you can't kiss, you can't have sex... Like that is not torture? --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't torture someone you knew for sure was a terrorist in order to save millions of lives? —Keenan Pepper 18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If I was completely certin that the person in front of me was a terrorist, and that by torturing them I could save millions of lives, I'd be pretty sure I was delusional. Since when are law enforcement personell privy to that certain of information about who is and isn't a terrorist? And terrorists have never, and probably never will kill millions of people. A couple thousand if they're lucky. --Crazywolf 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Way to avoid the question! —Keenan Pepper 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly avoiding a question to point out that it is based on a faulty premise and therefore has no application to reality. An interesting question, that actually relates to the real world, would be "would you torture someone you strongly suspected was a terrorist, if you had a good reason to believe that doing so would get you information that might possibly save thousands of lives", and that is rather harder to answer. Note that you also would have no way of knowing whether the torture victim was telling you the truth or not, which would be rather a problem in this specific situation where you presumably have a very short time limit to find the bomb or whatever. — Haeleth Talk 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If they're also carving you up limb by limb with a sharp knife to get you to talk (or confess -- if you had chosen slightly different "vices", we'd be talking about the inquisition) then obviously no, they're not good people. 82.131.190.191 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition to come up in this discussion! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack Bauer Did Torture that guy with the stripped wires of a lamp in season 4 (I think it was season 4) Dave 19 July 2006

{After edit conflict}.

Current science, I believe, teaches us that if you torture a person, they will tell you whatever nonsense or fantasy they think will stop the torture, the more made up the better, because there's details to string you along. We see this in abusive family relationships a lot. The person getting beat up, usually a wife or girl friend, will deny the abuse, say whatever they think will make it go away for a while, kind of like a stockhome syndrome. User:AlMac|^(talk) 13:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism

I have two questions to ask you about pantheism:

1.I've heard that there is a type of pantheism which says that God is the only thing that actually exists and that everything else, including ourselves and our own personal identity, is an illusion.But what type of pantheism is this?Classical or naturalistic pantheism?

Neither. There is such a belief, Monism, but it's not a form of pantheism. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2.I've heard that there's a connection between pantheism and belief in magical,supernatural, paranormal, and occult phenomena (excluding God).By that, it means those things are much more related to pantheism than to other types of theism.I've heard that many pantheists such as Shintoists,many ancient pagans, and believers of New Age religions believe in supernatural and/or magical phenomena such as spirits.I've also heard that most "witches",sorcerers,fortune-tellers, and psychics (or at least people who claim to be them) and many very superstitious people are pantheists.Is that true?If so, then why?If you said that pantheists don't really believe in the supernatural or that physical laws can be violated, then how do you explain this?

Didn't the movie Memento have something about repeated experience accessing a deep part of the brain? Maybe we should check to see if Joe Pantaleone is alright. Geogre 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Shintoists are animists, not pantheists.

I thought animism was a type of pantheism.If not, then what's the difference between animism and pantheism?60.241.116.24 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism is the belief that all of nature forms a unified divine whole. Animism is the belief that individual items within nature are each endowed with their own supernatural spirits or divinities. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But is animism similar to pantheism in that it says the universe began without the cause of a divine creator, or is it more similar to theism in that it says the universe was created by God or supernatural spirits?

That's impossible to answer, since pantheism doesn't say the universe began without a divine creator. It had one - nature. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Military Channels all over the world

Dear all! I'm busy with a project in monitoring web-sites of military TV channels all over the world. I've already found four channels in the USA (including Discovery), but I'm supposed to research TV channels in other countries too. The thing is that I can't find any more. I would be truly grateful to you, if you could give me any information of the worlds military channels or related ones. I mean channels both run by the military and about the military. Thank you! Julia --81.195.190.194 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean TV channels about the military or actually run by he military? I doubt there would be too many as most of the world doesn't have 500 channels and the parts that do get a lot of their channels from the U.S. and England. Nowimnthing 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean TV channels for the military, then there's BFBS. -- 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Discovery military channel is neither by the military nor for it. Please define your terms. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard people, who not like the content of the History Channel call it the hitler Channel because there's so much stuff about the nazis on it, and because the programming bends over backwards to be neutral and factual, it sounds like it is praising them, to someone who doesn't think anyone should be neutral towards the bad guys.

There are news agencies that provide people in the armed forces with news and information, but I would not expect these services to have web sites. I associate web sites with good infrastructure in a place that is not in conflict. Consider Lebanon ... the electric is out, the phones are out, they have a war going on ... you would not expect people in there to have access to TV or the Internet, their sources of information is word of mouth, and whatever they can get in a war zone. Similarly in Iraq. The troops might have personal radios, I doubt they have portable personal TVs or laptops, so how information gets to them is not the samw way we would get info in civilian life in a part of the world where there is no armed conflict going on. User:AlMac|^(talk) 13:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the tamil word 'Thamban'?

What is the meaning of the tamil word 'Thamban'?

I'm sure it translates to "Ask this in the Language forum" :)

Vodafone song

Does anyone know the song that is in the new Vodafone advert in the UK with the people floating about and what not. It sounds like an older band but I'm not sure! Thank you muchly.

Another Girl, Another Planet.  Slumgum T. C.   22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

guardian angels

What is the origin and significance of guardian angels being on the left shoulder versus the right shoulder?

Left is sinister in Latin. You need help there. Geogre 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dike nameday

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you with not typical matter. I have a friend whos name is Dike. We know that it is greek name. But we do not know when she has her nameday... She was looking for it in many places and did not find anything. I was also looking for the date of her nameday but also without result.

We were looking mainly in the Internet on various pages with nameday dates.. But the name "Dike" was always missing...

Could you help us with this? Do you know some page/callendar where we could find it? If you have such callendar with nameday of my friend Dike, I and she would be very grateful for sending/selling it, if possible.

Small description:

Dike, the Greek goddess of moral justice, one of the three second generation Horae

Dike (Greek for justice) was the goddess of moral justice. She ruled over human justice; her mother (Themis) ruled over divine justice. Dike was born a mortal and Zeus placed her on earth to keep mankind just. He quickly learned this was impossible and placed her next to him on Olympus.

Kind Regards

<personal information removed to prevent spam>

• Wilson's Blogmanac is pretty comprehensive.-hotclaws**==(81.134.77.56 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

The nameday for a given name is traditionally the feast day of the Christian saint of that name on the calendar of saints. Since Dike is a Greek goddess, and not a saint, she does not have such a feast day. There is a convention for such cases to use All Saints Day as the nameday. --Lambiam^Talk 09:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Persians

Are the Parthians the same at the Persians in 40 BC and are they the same in 600 AD?

Follow the links. Rmhermen 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

just to be clear, Rmhermen linkified the two words Parthians and Persians, by way of answer. Searching for the word "persian" on the Parthian page I find: Consequently Parthian history is largely derived from foreign histories, controlled by the evidence of coins and inscriptions; even their own name for themselves is debatable due to a lack of domestic records. Several Greek authors, of whom we have fragments, including Apollodorus of Artemita and Isidore of Charax, wrote under Parthian rule. Their power was based on a combination of the guerilla warfare of a mounted nomadic tribe, with organisational skills sufficient to build and administer a vast empire - even though it never matched in power the Persian empires that preceded and followed it. This is kind of confusing, there's no clear timeline on the page or anything. And, as for whether they're "the same" in 40 BC and in 600 AD as the Persians, I can't seem to find it. (Didn't read either article carefully though). If someone wants to, what's the answer? 82.131.186.80 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC). (I'm not the original poster).

The Parthians, according to our article, were originally part of the Parni people, a nomadic group — not Persians, although probably related. However, the Parthian empire was a mixture of different peoples, including the Persians — the founders of Parthia (the Arsacid Dynasty) may not have been Persian, but Persians would have been a major component of their empire. It's possible that before long, they had mixed with the Persians enough that they might be considered the same — a small group of people who conquer a large country often seem to end up merging into the culture that they conquered (Mongols in China, Normans in England, etc). The extent to which that happened in this case might not be known — there seem to be mixed signals. Our article on the Parthian language says that it, not the Persian language, remained the official language for the empire's duration, but our article on Parthia says that courtiers spoke Persian (I don't know if it means they primarily spoke Persian, or just spoke it in addition to Parthian). I'm not sure we actually have enough information to tell what happened, let alone put any specific dates on when it happened. -- Vardion 08:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A question about Judaism and Christianity.

I have read the articles about Judaism, Jews, Christianity, Anti-Semitism and other related articles. But I have this doubt lingering on in my mind that : Is judaism derived from christianity? I mean, Jews also have bible, so do christians. And other wise also, they have "ten commandment" or torah, and i think christians also have something in religion like it. So if someone could clarify my doubts. I may be wrong in presenting some of above facts, so correct me. Bye.

You've got it backwards: Christianity is derived from Judaism; the latter predates the former by many many centuries. To simplify, of course, there is a belief in Judaism, based on the Old Testament that one day a Messiah will come who will restore Judaism to its proper place (and perhaps bring about the end of the world). Christians believe that Jesus was that Messiah. Jesus himself was Jewish, and the earliest Christians were Jewish. In fact, one of the earliest conflicts in Christianity was between those who believed that only Jews could be Christians and those who believed that anyone could be. The book of Acts is in part about that very conflict, and there is much discussion of it in the New Testament. --George 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And how did Judaism originate? No where in any article has it been mentioned.

The exact origins of Judaism are unknown, but it appears to have formed from multiple influences. StuRat 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I will respectfully suggest another view: Christianity did NOT evolve from Judaism. Both Judaism and Christianity evolved from the same religious tradition in the middle centuries of the first millennium. Modern Judaism is not a lot closer to the Judaism of 50 AD (temple, priests, animal sacrifice) than Christianity is. They were considered two branches of the same religion in the second century. Modern characteristics and institutions gradually developed but modern Christianity is just as "legitimate" a descendant of the ancient religion of the Torah as modern Judaism. Maybe even bigger than the obvious have-we-or-havent-we-had-the-messiah difference, Christianity cut itself loose from the ethnic association and became one of the first "universal" religions claiming to be independent of culture and ethnicity while the tradition that remained "the religion of the Jews' became modern Judaism and is still bound to a culture and an ethnicity. alteripse 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George, for the excellent summary.

As for how Judaism "originated", it's somewhat of a difficult question, depending on what you mean by "originate". The "starting point", if you will, was, (according to scripture) around 2000 years before Christ (BC) when God made a promise, or "covenant" with Abraham, that his descendants would have a special relationship with God. Only about 800 years later was the Torah and with it the Ten Commandments handed down to Moses, a descendant of Abraham, at Mount Sinai. It was only then that Jews were actually instructed by God about how to live their lives, etc. So I guess you can say in simple terms that the "beginning of the beginning" of Judaism was with Abraham around 2000 BC, and the "end of the beginning" was with Moses around 1200 BC. Of course this analysis should not be taken as undisputed. Among those who don't believe that the Bible was a true story, many doubt that Abraham or Moses even existed, no less had contact with God, rather they believe that the Bible was a story written by humans (in this case Jews) to describe their origins. On the other hand, looked at a certain way by certain present day Jewish believers, Judaism has still not fully formed, rather by its very nature, it continues to form every day up until and beyond this very day. Loomis 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you have just described the founding legend of Christianity as well. You cannot distinguish the two by simply tracing one back to the OT since they both base their lineage on the same documents and legends. alteripse 23:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why so defensive, Alterprise? The question was of the origins of Judaism. Period. I think I gave a pretty accurate NPOV description of that.

Of course Christians believe Christianity to be the true faith, the faith that God had in mind when speaking to Abraham, just as Muslims believe that Abraham's relationship with God was mainly to establish Islam as the true faith.

As for the Jews that exist today, this is their interpretation of the origins of Judaism. Do you disagree that this was an accurate description of the origins of Judaism? Loomis 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with believing what is written in any holy book, be it the Torah, Bible, or Koran. Most of the information regarding the founding of the religions is myth, not fact. Actual scientific evidence, like archeological records, should be used to establish the origins of each religion. We certainly know that Judaism (although in a much different form) existed first, and then Christianity (and later Islam) formed as an offshoot. I suppose the argument can be made that ancient Judaism was so different from modern Judaism that the two are different religions, although I don't agree. Some versions of modern Judaism, like Orthodox Jews, still have quite a bit in common with ancient Judaism. StuRat 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Muslims believe that Judaisim and Christianity were true faiths. Judaism until Christianity came, and Christianity until Islam came. -LambaJan 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure, Stu, I always preface all of my responses to questions regarding religion with some sort of qualifier. In this case, please note that I prefaced the entire post with the qualifier "according to scripture". Personally, I disagree with taking any position on the veracity of these texts. Literally, I take an entirely Neutral Point of View. To insist that either the Torah, Bible or Koran is the absolute truth that EVERYONE must accept is nothing short of ignorant arrogance. Likewise, however, to state as you did that these texts are absolutely, without question, works of fiction is just as arrogant and ignorant. The only acceptable NPOV view is that we simply DON'T KNOW what's true and what isn't. Loomis 02:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty

Both sides have good arguments. Here is an argument from the pro-death penalty side which seems hard to counter: Fred murdered three people and is now serving three consecutive life sentences, with no possibility of parole. Fred murders a guard. How should Fred be punished? He can't be beaten or starved, because that would be cruel, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. What kind of additional punishment can be inflicted on Fred, to achieve some measure of justice for the family of the dead prison guard and for society in general? From Fred's point of view, what is the downside for killing a guard or another prisoner? What if the prison authorities cut his food ration in half? What if he were placed in solitary for twenty years - would that be cruel? How about water only from now on - no juice, milk or coffee? 66.213.33.2 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to punish him, the most likely one being to put him in solitary confinement for a long period of time. And since there is absolute certainty that he will be punished, the punishment doesn't have to be as severe as it would need to be if he weren't in prison. If the fact that he is going to be locked in solitary confinement for a year or two doesn't deter him, then probably nothing will. Increasing the severity of the punishment doesn't increase the deterent effect nearly as much as increasing the certainty of punishment. So if absolute certainty of a moderately severe punishment isn't enough deterent, he probably lacks the capability to properly consider the long-term-consequences in these situations. Thus, threat of death wouldn't be a useful tool for managing his behavior. It would just be a way to get revenge. Other measures should be taken to ensure the safety of the guards. If all else fails, then locking him in solitary confinement semi-permanently as a safety precaution would be an option. --Crazywolf 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the prisons should assume all prisoners want to murder everyone they meet and take appropriate precautions. Personally, I think all prisoners should be in solitary all the time, to limit their ability to commit crimes and form links with other criminals which they use once released. StuRat 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that was the approach, though the rationale was different, for the invention of the penitentiary. Was originally thought an improvement to physical punishment. Drives a lot of them insane. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the death penalty is no deterrent for someone who has already committed a murder that will get him the death penalty once caught. If killing more people makes it less likely he will get caught (say witnesses), it's definitely in his interest to do so. Also, while waiting in jail for his appeals to run out, he might as well kill a guard, they might even delay the execution until the investigation or new trial is complete. StuRat 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't be cruel make the buildings cruel: Panopticon. MeltBanana 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting all prisoners in solitary confinement would prevent the reformation of the prisoners and create a much higher recidvism rate when they were released. Prisons, at least in the US, aren't supposed to be warehouses, but places where criminals are turned into good citizens. Emmett5 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They can have a computer terminal to get education lessons, and a Bible. They don't learn anything valuable from other prisoners, just how to be better criminals. StuRat 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Prisons in the United States, and prisons in European nations since the late 18th century, have been dedicated to the premise that they are not there to punish. Prior to the 18th century, prison was never a punishment: it was where one was stored until punishment could be enacted. In the 18th century itself, prison terms were lengthening and medieval and renaissance punishments were being put aside. Therefore, the idea was to come up with a place where persons could do penance -- a penitentiary -- and where people could be reformed -- a reformatory. However, there has never been an official change of overall philosophy to prison as punishment, and yet the general public (and criminal public) thinks that prison is suffering, is punishment, is "justice." Be aware that the prisons were not designed for that. I think they shouldn't be designed for that, either, but the most important thing is that you should not be concerned with trying to inflict pain to match pain inflicted, for doing something like that is, in the first instance, impossible and is, in the second instance, to reiterate cruelty and predation. So the answer to the argument is, "You're asking the wrong question: we're not trying to punish at all." Geogre 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation? Ok. For the old rationale and practice of prisons, see Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish, and for the development of the penitential and reforming impulse behind the design of the contemporary prison system, see the awful, turgid, nearly-useless, Frederick Bogel's The Idea of the Penitentiary. For better but more partial views, there are several scholars who have written about the reform movements associated with the early Methodism movement and the Bluestocking society. As for citing that the philosophy has never officially changed, I'm afraid that I can't cite a negative, but I would be interested to see any citation to where we did change our centuries of philosophy on this matter. Geogre 12:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that all of society agrees on the purpose of incarceration at any given time; nothing could be farther from the truth. People all have different goals for prison, including punishment, reform, salvation, deterrence, and removal from society. Unfortunately, many of these goals are mutually exclusive, making prisons a failure by almost any measure. StuRat 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is ever absolutely certain and people make mistakes. That also goes for courts of justice. If you kill someone and find out the reason was wrong, how do you compensate for your mistake? That is an overriding argument against the death penalty that no pro-arguments can sufficiently counter. DirkvdM 08:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how did the questioner come to the conclusion that beating or starving the prisoner would be cruel (and disallowed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution) but the death penalty isn't. If you're going to punish someone that's the most cruel punishment you can give, unless they actually want to be dead. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of what pain is. Please turn around so I can hit in you the back with a baseball bat. There are MANY things worse than death. Death is easy. --mboverload@ 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all. But I wasn't really asking for philosophies of prison. I want suggestions for SPECIFIC PUNISHMENTS for the murder of the guard. What punishment can be imposed that would not be cruel or unusual? For example, I suggest: (1) life in solitary confinement, with no mail in or out, and no visitors (2)half rations for the rest of Fred's life (3)water only from now on(4)five hours of brutal exercise every day (5) sleep deprivation, maybe three or four days at a time (6) slaps and kicks from the guards (7) two or three days each week in a "sweat box", with heat up to 130 degrees. Fred would probably leave this world in a year or two, but would that be a problem?

Biblical quote : Ask and you shall receive."

In what context was this quote and who said it? Thank you. B.Mackey

See Sermon on the Mount --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, if you, as a father, would never give your child a stone when he asked for bread, then how much more will God give to His children when they ask? Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock, and the door will be opened. ("A.S.K." -> Ask, Seek, Knock.) Geogre 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Assault in Prison

At least according to popular culture, sexual assault is an extremely common phenomenon in prisons, at least maximum security prisons, a phenomenon so common that it's almost considered inevitable that if you're actually sentenced to do any time, you're almost guaranteed to be sexually victimized in some way or another.

Therefore my first question is to determine how true this is. Popular culture has a tendency to overdramatize things, and so this phenomenon may indeed be not nearly as common as it's made out to be. However, I can't help to assume the truth of the fact that sexual assault is indeed a rather common occurrence. Having never been in prison, can anyone verify how the veracity of this inhumane phenomenon?

My next question would be this: Why is this such a non-issue in popular media, among goody-goody NGO's etc...? It's not that I have any particular sympathy for the most heinous of criminals, such as cold-blooded murderers, rapists and pedophiles, (in fact, I have to admit small part of me sees this as them getting a taste of their own medicine). But these don't seem to be the only victims. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment in the extreme to sentence a bank robber or even a second degree murderer to several years of forced sodomy? Why doesn't anyone seem to care? In fact, not only is this phenomenon taken for granted, it's actually callously joked about in, for example, some of the more serious of television dramas. For example - [The prosecution in a plea bargain]: "Either agree to pleading guilty with our offer of a suspended sentence, or else get used to being the latest plaything of a 300lb cellmate named "Bubba'".

Of course that was drama, and in real life I doubt any prosecutor would actually say something like that without being severely disciplined by a legal ethics committee. But the attitude is still there. Sexual assault is commonplace in prison and nobody seems to care. We seem to care more about saving the whales, about baby seals being slaughtered, about rodents being bred and killed for their fur, and even about the fact that many ranches mistreat their animals by having them cooped up in tiny pens waiting to be slaughtered (which I agree, are all bad things) yet we don't seem to give a damn about the fact that the sexual assault of human prison inmates is a routine part of being incarcerated. Can anyone explain this to me?

Finally, I have a cultural/historical question on the matter: When I speak of "popular culture" and "sexual assault in prisons", I'm generally referring to contemporary prisons in North America. Is this phenomenon culture, region and time specific? For example, was it commonplace in other places and at other times, such as in Soviet gulags, old English debtors' prisons, in medieval kings' dungeons or present day third world detention centres? How much is the phenomenon of sexual assault in prisons a 20/21st century "western" thing? Loomis 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkish prisons are notorious for that, as well. There was even a veiled reference to it in Lawrence of Arabia (film).

• I opine that in societies that aren't transparent like Islamic ones, you will never hear about sexual assault. At least, open societies report things. However, this is no justification for putting a person convicted of tax fraud next to a rapist or other violent criminal. I think everyone should be kept in a cell, both men and women.--Patchouli 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop Prisoner Rape has quite a bit of information on the subject. They are pretty obviously POV, but they do reference a large number of academic articles on the subject.

That was a nice viewpoint that you posted. I agree with you at a high level. Too little is being done about prison assault. --Proficient 03:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just for the record, though, Lawrence of Arabia's claim to have been sexually assaulted (and enjoyed it) in the Turkish prison has long been suspected as a fabrication, and recently released letters seem to have confirmed that. JackofOz 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Name this tool used in moviemaking

Hi guys. What is the name of that tool used in filmmaking to synchronize video and audio at the start of a sequence? The one with the black and white stripes and information written on it, such as scene number, name of project and date? I know it in portuguese (which is "claquete", I believe, from the "clacking" sound it makes). I tryied several online translators and none got the word. Thanks! Quase 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, just found it through the Cinematographer article. It is a Clapperboard. Thanks Quase :-) ! Quase 22:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Quasi-Quase 08:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel

Why do middle eastern countries object to the existance of a Jewish state?

Good question...beats me. Loomis 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel and History of Israel are probably good places to start. Emmett5 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt those articles, though informative, are what the questioner is looking for. I'm intimately aware of all the information in those articles, yet, I, like the questioner, am equally perplexed as to why a Jewish state is considered so intolerable by the Arab world. Loomis 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that their only objection is to it being placed in the middle of what were previously primarily Muslim lands. I think they would have the same objection to a Buddhist state there. Their attitude is "it's our land, now give it back !" StuRat 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Which of course was the Jews' desire too; it's just that they were booted 2000 years ago rather than 60. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • ...having themselves booted out the earlier inhabitants. Which is the problem with any "current occupants vs previous occupants" business. Going back to the original situation is often pointless, if not ridiculous (give Romania back to the Celts!). This is not, BTW, to say that both sides don't have very valid claims to the land. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Bible' have themselves booted out the earlier inhabitants. One can't necessarily trust the Bible. There's evidence for a Jewish kingdom in the region around the supposed time of King David. The historical record is shaky, though - Jews could have come from elsewhere before that and booted the inhabitants out, or the Jewish religion could have spontaneously arose in the region, and the inhabitants of the region converted to it. Or, more likely, a mix of the two. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All this begs the question: "Where do Jews belong"? Loomis 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New York City ? :-) StuRat 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, not every religous or ethnic group has a homeland. Kurds, for example, don't, and won't, unless northern Iraq becomes an independent Kurdistan. Gypsies (AKA the Roma people) don't have a homeland, either. There are many, many other groups which lack a homeland. Perhaps the rest of the world, and even the Jews themselves, ultimately would have been better off had the Jews remained without a homeland. If we end up with a nuclear war betwen Israel and it's neighbors in a few decades, then it will be pretty clear that this was the case. StuRat 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I wish I could have an intelligent discussion about this topic, but I think I'll give up on that. "Perhaps the...world would be better off...had the Jews remained without a homeland". Without a homeland, the Jews would clearly be exterminated from the face of the earth. But perhaps that would be a "good thing" after all! Think about it! Peace in the middle east after all!

Since reason won't get me anywhere, I'll state very simply: We're Jews, we have a state, we're here to stay, DEAL WITH IT! Loomis 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what they are doing. And Israel then deals with that. It's called war. DirkvdM 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why Jews would have been more likely to be exterminated without a homeland. After all, you managed to survive for thousands of years without one. On the contrary, I feel the state of Israel will eventually bring about the extermination of many Jews, via nuclear war with the Muslims, and, of course, the deaths of millions of Muslims, too. It's just a matter of time before all parties have nuclear weapons, it can be delayed, but not prevented. StuRat 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly true if people keep on thinking like that, Stu. But we have a choice, don't we? I've never seen nuclear proliferation as inevitable, and I'm not going to. JackofOz 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The only way we could stop nuclear proliferation is if everyone agreed to go to war with any country which tried to develop nukes or banned inspections, and we are nowhere near that point. Heck, we can't even agree on weak sanctions, which would almost certainly fail, in any case. Iran is likely to get nukes unless they are militarily defeated, and they seem to be behind the Hezbollah attack on Israel, so a nuclear war with Israel isn't far off, it just will take a few years for Iran to finish their bomb. StuRat 16:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really believe that a nuclear war is only a matter of time away, you may as well go and cut your throat now. It's up to us to stop just insanely taking this as a foregone conclusion, thus adding fuel to the fire, and instead focus attention on ensuring it never happens - anywhere. Thanks to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the USA has a particular responsibility in this regard. JackofOz 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First, a limited nuclear war may well be survivable by the majority of Earth's population. Second, the US has a very limited ability to act as the world's policeman, alone. They can take out any single, non-nuclear power, so long as there is no nuclear power backing them, but can't deal singlehandedly with multiple situations all over the planet at once. Unfortunately, most other countries refuse to do anything unless led by the US, and even then frequently fight the US. I do have respect for Australia, however, for actually doing something about East Timor when the original colonial power, Portugal, did nothing of any use to help. StuRat 11:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

'Many Jews' does not constitute extermination, I believe. DirkvdM 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but then no group as widely spread out as Jews could ever be exterminated without wiping out the entire human population. Of course, limiting the likelihood of millions of deaths is still a good thing. StuRat 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reality check number 1. Loomis you cannot support your assertion that without israel the jews would be exterminated off the face of the earth. There are as many jews in north america alone as in Israel, arent there? You make a weak case with exaggerations and simple falsehoods. alteripse 02:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you jump down my throat about this misrepresentation of history, remember that I am about to say what I've been told by Jewish, Syrian and Saudi doctors - these are not my statements. If you are too stupid to understand that, do not read the next paragraph...

I have asked both Muslim middle easterners and Israelis about their views. The Israelis claim that when they returned to Israel, it was barren desert. They built Israel from nothing and now the Muslims, who are too lazy to work on their own countries, want to take theirs. On the other hand, I've had a Syrian and a Saudi both make their view clear. They claim that all the way through to the middle of last century, there was a well-developed Palestine state and that all neighboring countries were in peace. Then, because the Europeaners didn't like Jews, the United States swarmed in with tanks and planes and ran all the Muslims out. They were sent into the desert with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Then, the Jews came in and took their homes, their businesses, their clothes, their country. Ever since, the United States keeps sending money and weapons to Israel in an attempt to keep taking Muslim land one acre at a time.

If you ignore the real history and look at it from their twisted points of view, you can easily see why this is a conflict that can't be ended with a silly roadmap to peace. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reality check number 2. The US had almost nothing to do with the formation of israel-- certainly no "swarm of tanks and planes". Please stick to facts instead of falsehoods. Thanks. alteripse 02:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the point - the questioner wants to know what the whole problem is. The problem is not based on facts. It is based on falsehoods. Until others realize that, there can be progress. It is a complete waste of time to assume all the people involved in the fight know what really happened and why it happened. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The mullahs and Sunni clerics make the youths think that if Israel goes, those youths can own the free land that will be left. The youth think silently, "Ooh, then I can own property with ease. I won't then have to work for it for 20-30 years." (I know a lot of people who even in their 60s don't own a property. 20-30 if there is not misfortune for a someone who has an irresponsible family as do the Palestinean youths.) This is one component of the brainwashing. What difference does it make for an Arab between Beirut and Jerusalem? --Patchouli 01:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppose you have an old bike. I steal it and fix it up. Is it now my bike? DirkvdM 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do the people of any invaded place object to being invaded? You may find Zionism useful, particularly this section. Natgoo 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to see, and this is completely objective so all sides should normally have no problem with this, is

a map of what was supposed to be Palestine (so the British mandate, without the current kingdom of Jordan) , what i mean is in other words : the land the Palestinians claim

- an answer to the question : is the union of the State of Israel with the Palestinian territories exactly (not more or less) the same as the land in my first question - if the answer to the latter question is yes : an area depicting the Jewish and Arab half of the land discussed in the first qustion.

Evilbu 12:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine has a map of the British mandate of Palestine. But then those borders were also determined by a colonial force. I suppose the land the Palestinians claim is the land they lived on before the Israelis came. If such an area can be easily defined. Which is doubtful. DirkvdM 08:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I've erased the bolds in my statement, as I was in a particularly angry mood when making it. And yes, the Jews would likely not be totally exterminated without Israel, that was admittedly hyperbole on my part. Yet my point remains the same. Without Israel, Jews would have no sanctuary to flee to whenever any "host" country decides that they're no longer welcome. To say that the history of the Jews was constant persecution over the past 2000 years is in fact an oversimplification. I only wish it were as simple as that. In fact, the history of the Jews over this time period is rather one of repeating and predictable cycles.

One country's king would decide to take a sincere liking for Jews, and welcome them into his kingdom with open arms. He would then die, and kids being rebellious as they are, his son would ascend to the throne with a particular hatred towards Jews, deciding that his poor old dad was a fool, and condoning the harrassment and killing of all Jews within his realm. And so they'd find another place with benevolent king and the whole cycle would begin again. It wouldn't always involve kings, but any regime. It happened in Poland, where Jews were invited to live unharrased, and often times these periods would be considered "golden years" among Jewish historians, until the other shoe would drop, when the Polish king would die, and his son would encourage pogroms. Same goes for Russia under the "nice" tsars. Same goes for Spain up until the Spanish inquisition. Jews eventually found that central Europe was a great place to live, as society there had become devoted to enlightened philosophy and the rest. Then came Nazism. America and western Europe seemed to be comfortable places to live, and to this day America has remained extremely tolerant. Yet the situation of Jews in western Europe is becoming to look troubling, particular in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and Jews there have started to realize it's time to leave once again. I know this because, at least from France and Belgium, French speaking Jews are beginning to flee en masse to my home province of Quebec. Others to Israel. When will the other shoe drop in "enlightened" countries like Canada and the US? Hopefully never, but as history has taught us, that's a foolish hope. Besides, North American immigration policies being what they are, only a limited number of immigrants are allowed each year, which is perfectly understandable. So those who cannot escape to North America still always have Israel as a refuge. Same goes for those million or so escaping the increasingly hostile environment in post Soviet Russia. Israel was their only refuge.

Looking back over the past 2000 years, despite all the wars and terrorism Israel has suffered, it's a relative spit-in-the-bucket compared to the murder of Jews in any other 58 year period of history. So THAT'S the longer version of why a Jewish homeland is so desperately necessary. Loomis 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First, democracies aren't subject to sudden flip-flops like totalitarian systems are, so Jews, and other minorities, should be safe in any stable democracy (note that the Weimar Republic was extremely unstable, however). StuRat 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, there are more than enough safe places in the world for Jews to live. I agree that some places are unsafe, but wouldn't include France. I assume you're talking about attacks from the large Muslim population there. This is not the same as a hostile government bent on extermination, not by a long shot. StuRat 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Democracies are a new invention and they refused to let Jewish refugees before the WWII began (so much for Democracies niceness and our arrogance). The problem is that "We" today think that anti-semitism is largely dead and is never going to return to real power. Hopefully it is so, but if you were a Jew in 1946 would you be willing to take that chance? Would you risk the life of your future descendands upon the goodwill of "others", the same "others" who had opposed Hitler alltoo late? Israel is the ultimate safe-hafen for the Jews. Problem is that noone even asked the Palestinians about it. Almost everybody agreed that the Jews needed a new country, but at expense of the Palestinians. Noone even compensated them, and the "West" (mainly France initially, then the USA) supported Israel in every way possible. The only real possible solution is to give the Palestinians their own country (with the borders of 1976), sharing Jerusalem, and then help them into reaching a good standard of living. Poor young desperate ppl make good terrorists, the majority of old rich ppl want only to mantain their standarts of living. Give them their own contry, allow them to reach their Holy places, a good home, good food, television, and the pill. Peace will follow. Flamarande 12:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great answer, Flamarande. I agree with you 99%. I'll assume your reference to 1976 was a transposition of the last two digits, and you meant 1967. I totally agree with you in principle that the Palestinians should have their own state, and I sincerely, genuinely, wish that one day a Palestinian and a Jewish state will live not only in peace with each other, but actually develop bonds of mutual economic friendship for the prosperity of both countries, as well as a mutual respect not only for Muslims to visit Muslim holy sites in Israel, but of course as well for Jews to be free to visit Jewish holy sites in Palestine.

The reason I hold back the 1% is that I don't see how it's possible at this time. Every time Israel tries to arrive at an agreement, the agreement is rejected by the Palestinians. At the Camp David 2000 Summit, Israel pretty much agreed to withdraw from all Palestinian territory. I say pretty much because there were a few details that Israel would not give in on, at least not right away. But then again, who was it that said "a good compromise is when both parties find they didn't quite get completely what they wanted"? In any case, when Israel was offered statehood back in 1948, it was nothing close to what they wanted, but they took what they could get, as any state was better than no state. Similarly, Arafat was offered a state in 2000, albeit not exactly the state he wanted (and who knows what state he indeed wanted!) and rejected it.

Now Israel withdraws from Gaza, essentially giving the Palestinians a de facto state (at least a start!) and how do they respond? Do they take the opportunity to elect a government that would establish diplomatic ties with Israel in order to negotiate Israel's peaceful withdrawal from the rest of Palestinian territories? One would think they would, why not? They now have a home base and statehood is within their grasp. But no. They elect a government which refuses to recognize Israel and not only refuses to renounce violence, but as we've just seen, instigates it by firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping soldiers. And people wonder why Israel won't simply "withdraw" from the West Bank. After seeing what happened when they withdrew from Gaza, it would be insane to further withdraw! If Gaza is now the base of anti-Israeli terrorism, imagine the enemy Israel would be creating by leaving all the territories! From 1967 to today, the rest of the world was basically saying to Israel "why don't you just withdraw, give the Palestinians a state, and the rest will solve itself". How could anyone possibly say that now, seeing the result of Israel withdrawing from Gaza? In fact I see the withdrawal from Gaza as Ariel Sharon's political masterpiece. He's once and for all proved that the Palestinians are simply not ready to be the friendly neighbours the Israelis and the rest of the world wish they would be.

And Stu, you assumed wrong. I wasn't at all referring to attacks by the large Muslim population of France. I was referring to the actual French electorate. I'm sure you know this already but in their system, the presidential election is held in two rounds. In the first, basically everybody gets to run, but in the second, the top two candidates of the previous round face off with one another for the final election. The result is usually routine, the two candidates chosen are one each from the mainstream left and the mainstream right parties. Only last time, in the 2002 election, the leader of the mainstream left, Lionel Jospin, was actually beat out by the far-right xenophobic, anti-immigration, anti-foreigner, nationalistic anti-semite Jean-Marie Le Pen. Granted he ultimately lost, but the fact that he actually came in second is frightening enough.

I'm not as clear on Belgian and Dutch politics, but from what I understand, radical right-wing parties are similarly experiencing electoral success. So no, it's not the Muslim communities that I'm worried about here, it's the actual mainstream French, Belgians and Dutch. Loomis 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Le Pen got less than 17% of the vote in the first round and, according to out article, "Chirac defeated Le Pen by a landslide" in the second round (even though Chirac was viewed by many as a crook). I don't really see any cause for concern. Even if Le Pen had won, it's not like he could do anything to persecute Jews on his own, his party would need to control all branches of government for that to happen. StuRat 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me a hypochondriatic (is that a word?) canary in a cave, but even 17% is a frightening number. Compare that with where I live, where no party, neither the "electable" ones (the ones that actually win seats), nor the serious "nearly electable" ones (the ones that always give it an honest effort to win a seat but always fail, like the Greens, the Communists, the Marxist-Leninists, the Marijuana Party (they actually have a pretty decent following, yet they just never seem to remember to vote)), nor even the absurd joke parties that don't have a chance in hell of any sort of electoral victory, would EVER, DARE have such an outlandishly racist platform. Le Pen has said that if elected, he would strip the citizenship of, and deport "in a humane fashion" 3 million (about 5% of the country's population) "non-European" French citizens from France. He's also been convicted in a German court of Holocaust revisionism for having stated something to the effect of how "he wasn't entirely sure that there were indeed gas chambers used by the Nazis in WWII", and even if there were, "it's nothing but a minor detail of history". In short, this is one scary dude.

To put things in an American perspective, in the 2002 French election, roughly 31 million French voted in the second round, and Le Pen picked up 17.8% of those votes, giving him 5.5 million votes. In the 2004 US presidential election, roughly 122 million Americans voted for president. Now the US has a population of about 300 million. Imagine if one man or woman (after all, stupidity, racism and intolerance doesn't discriminate based on gender) promised that if elected, s/he would (amongst an endless list of outrageously racist policies) deport "in a humane fashion" 5%, or 15 million American citizens, (we're not talking about illegal aliens here, actual citizens!), because they didn't quite fit in with the rest of "America". Remember that the Black population of the US is only about 12%, about the same for Hispanics (many of whom are part Black anyway), and about 2% of Americans are Jewish. So take your pick on who he or she would have in mind. It doesn't really matter.

What matters is that roughly 122 million Americans voted in 2004, and 17.8% of that is 22 million. Imagine if an incredible 22 million of American voters voted for this insanely frightening candidate. We're dealing with some scary stuff here. Landslides only happen when a realistic candidate loses by a great margin to a far more popular realistic candidate. Nixon beat McGovern by a "landslide" in '72. Reagan beat Mondale by a "landslide" in '84, yet no one ever talks of Bush beating Nader by a "landslide" in '04, mainly because Nader never had any serious chance of winning, and also because the natural runner up was the slightly left-of-centre yet mainstream and respectable John Kerry. Let there be no mistake, I'm by no means comparing Nader to Le Pen.

It would just be my perfect nightmare to open the news on one Wednesday morning in November only to read the headline: Joe Democrat or Jane Republican Beats Farakhan by a Landslide! 83% to 17%! or if a similar candidate: Beats [insert prominent KKK leader here] by a Landslide! 83% to 17%! Feel free to use your imagination. Insert any scary leader you wish. If anything similar were to happen in Canada, I'd seriously consider leaving. 17% is indeed a VERY scary number.

As for the French presidential system, it has got to be by far the democratic system with the most centralized authority in one office, that of the President. Though democratically elected, the French President's term lasts seven years, and his powers, (with regard to his own country of course) are immense. The Presidency of France, within the French jurisdiction of course, has got to be the most powerful democratic office in the world, by a long shot. Loomis 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that in a calm, composed manner, I feel that an apology is nonetheless due to all you guys for all my recent outbursts, and the inevitable ones to follow. If any of you would actually ever meet me in real life, I'm sure you'd be shocked. I'm actually one of the most soft-spoken, mild mannered people you'd ever meet. However if you think that on the inside I'm just another paranoid Jewish whack-job, then I'm afraid the truth is...you're right. I take this wiki thing waaaay too seriously. We're all here to share views, not to attack each other. Stu, if you think that the establishment of the State of Israel was the first step to inevitable nuclear armageddon, that's your belief, and you have every right to it. Dirk, if you believe that the US government is basically a self-serving, corrupt, sadistic regime bent on world domination, it's totally within your right to believe that too. Ben, you love Jesus and I'm sure he loves you back. (Please don't take that in a sarcastic or condescending manner, Ben, I truly admire your religious convictions). Finally, Jack, (didn't think I'd leave you out now did you?)...well, you're quite the mystery. You speak your mind when you feel it necessary, and the rest of the time, when not providing a witty quip (or at least what you believe to be a witty quip :) ), I imagine you sitting back on a comfy loungechair at your computer wondering what the hell the rest of us whack-jobs are smoking. So now I'll take a deep breath, count to ten and imagine myself in my happy-place. All the best to ALL of you. Loomis 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you assume nuclear war means Armageddon, it does not. I see a nuclear war between Israel and Muslims as inevitable, but don't see it spreading beyond the Middle East. Armageddon can wait until every country has nukes and some future conflict spreads worldwide. And even then, I see some humans surviving, so still not a true Armageddon. StuRat 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive and forget is something that many users swear by, me included. I'm not even mad at an admin I thought blocked me for crappy reasons! =D Israel is a very heated thing to talk about, people actually die in this dispute daily. Thank you for taking the time to write this up, I'm sure anyone can see you have the best of intentions. --mboverload@ 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They're probably smoking the same stuff I'm smoking (:-:). You're OK, Loomis51. Crazy too ... but OK. (Btw, does the 51 refer to your desire for Canada to become the 51st state of the USA?) JackofOz 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heartwarming responses guys. I don't mind at all being called crazy, just not an asshole, that's all. As for what I'm smoking...well, the only thing I smoke is tobacco, (which I've quit several times in the past, and hopefully will quit for good sometime in the near future). Otherwise, my only poison (and source of lunacy) comes in the liquid form.

And no, Jack, the 51 doesn't stand for that. God forbid! I may admire US foreign policy, but I'd never want to live there! US domestic policy sucks! I've visited the US a zillion times and each time those people scare the shit out of me! I'm just a cowardly Canadian who admires US foreign policy. But if push came to shove, and WWIII started, I'd get on the first EL/AL flight to Tel-Aviv and enlist in the IDF. That way, at least I'd be confident that I'm fighting for a cause I believe in. :)

The story of the "51" is this: I'm a baseball player. I play in a league. We all got our choice of numbers for our uniforms. Originally I picked "50", as signifying perfect balance. The next year, though, I decided that perfect balance just wasn't quite right for me. I wanted to be at least a bit off kilter, so I switched to 51, and I've stuck with it ever since. Thanks again and all the best guys. Loomis 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I "believe that the US government is basically a self-serving, corrupt, sadistic regime bent on world domination"? Where did that come from? DirkvdM 07:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is what I think you believe, Dirk. And you also appear to equate terrorism (intentional murder of civilians) with legitimate military actions, like removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. StuRat 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't worry Dirk, that paragraph was meant mainly as an excercise in self-criticism. I was merely caricaturizing everyone's viewpoints, not criticizing them. My only point was that whatever you believe is your business and that it's innappropriate for me to get all hostile every time I disagree with someone. I really hadn't put nearly as much thought into that remark as it would seem to appear, and for that I apologize as well. How about "Dirk, if you believe that hyper-pacifism is the way to go, and that any violence, no matter how morally justified, is still morally wrong, than you have every right to believe that." I retract the previous statement. :) Loomis 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I believe Dirk said was that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and vice versa, and that ALL forms of violence are completely unnacceptable, under any circumstances. That's why I revised my caricaturization of his views to be simply "hyper-pacifist". Yet I've challenged this view on at least two occasions, with no response: In WWII, for whatever reason, the allies assigned much of the task of liberating the Netherlands to Canada. I'm sure Dirk knows this very well, as to this day, the good Dutch people continue to express their appreciation by waving Canadian flags each November 11. Therefore I ask once again: In risking and losing many young Canadian lives in a successful effort to remove the German occupiers from the Netherlands, and in doing so KILLING many German troops, yes KILLING THEM! Were we in the wrong? Is one man's terrorist INDEED another man's freedom fighter? Are you so committed to pacifism that you oppose the VIOLENT allied action in freeing the Netherlands from German occupation? Are you so devoted to "cultural relativism" that you won't even admit that the Germans were WRONG for invading your country, and the allies were RIGHT for freeing it?

I had really hoped not to be confrontational, at least not in this section! So once again, Dirk, yes you have every right to be a hyper-pacifist cultural relativist, and I reiterate my commitment to a peaceful exchange of ideas. So once again, no hard feelings Dirk, I STILL wish you all the best. :) (I originally loathed that stupid happy face thing, but I see no alternative way of expressing my goodwill, so I guess I'm stuck with it! :) :) :).........jeez!) Loomis 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)