Humanities desk
< December 19	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 20

Why'd it take so long for books (codex form) to be invented?

In 2 or 3 thousand years of readers, not one of them thought of putting the pages one on top of the other and bind them together, instead of making a really, really long page that had to be rolled up to use (the scroll). It takes alot longer to scroll (haha) to the page you want. Sure only a small percentage of the population was literate and the population was a lot smaller but they were the smartest people in their society and thousands of years is a long time. Seems like it would take more insight to discover the papyrus in the first place. And anyway, the very first time anyone wrote they probably only had to write a little, so one sheet was sufficient. Then he wrote some more and it couldn't fit so which would seem more natural, make another sheet and hold it over the other one or keep gluing sheets to the end until it drops to the floor, thus rolling it up was invented? It can't be so obvious that everyone did it. And if papyrus is naturally roll-ey or something why can't they just heat it with steam or something until it lays flat? Given the effort it would take to write one couldn't they have at least painted the edges of the "pages" of with a repeating color code? Like "hmm, laws relating to slaves stealing?" [[scrolls till the third green line disappears]]? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they just kept doing what they made in the past until the wax tablet was invented. The latter couldn't be binded into a scroll, so the codex was born. Just a guess. Also take into account that scrolls are still used for religious texts. There is little reason to be innovative here. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wax tablet predates the codex by millennia. It may even predate the scroll. --NellieBly (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that until you've tried to make a book yourself, you can't really appreciate the difficulty of it. If you can make a sheet of paper you can make a scroll; cutting, shaping, arranging, binding, and (most importantly) preserving books takes more knowledge and skill. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same I-don't-really-know-but-I'm-a-guessin' line, I would think that a book is very useful for things you intend to read multiple times, or flip around in. Scrolls are pretty straightforward if you're only reading things once or twice, or sending short messages, or moving in mostly one direction. Given what most writing was for in those days — records of who owed what to whom, and decrees, and laws — a scroll works pretty well, on the whole. Once you start expecting people to read lots of things, like a religious text, a book becomes more useful, but even then, there are still some folks who manage to get by with scrolls in that arena. But I think one of the main points an honest to god history of the book scholar would emphasize is that people didn't use these kinds of things the same way back then as they do now. They didn't keep personal libraries with stuff on the shelves to be consulted frequently or shared. A handful of folks might have, but a handful of folks does not a print industry make. As the technology evolved, the habits evolved, which led to more technology, and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "some folks...manage to get by with scrolls in that arena" but I just wanted to point out that also found at the linked-to article is is that "The text of the Torah is also commonly printed and bound in book form for non-ritual functions." Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spread and popularization of the codex (book) form was very strongly associated with Christians, so maybe the real question is why Christians were so much more receptive to the innovation? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they were all about change, if books had been in use before, the Christians might have insisted on scrolls. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather pointlessly flippant... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's flippant about it ? While there are those groups that want to keep things the same no matter what (like Orthodox Jews), there are other groups that believe in change for change's sake. Since the Christians nullified much of the Old Testament, switching the format of the writings is trivial in comparison. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark was neither true nor insightful nor amusing == pointlessly flippant. AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thought on the difference, since scrolls lack a binding to crack, do they actually hold up better to constant use than books do ? These days, that's no big deal, just get a new copy when the old book wears out. But, back then, producing another copy, by hand, was prohibitively expensive. (They could also rebind the books, if they caught it in time, before pages were lost.) StuRat (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the book rebound was the usual solution for valuable books. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Scrolls are a pain in the ass. If you need to have a long work easily indexible (i.e., able to jump to any passage easily) then you need lots of relatively short scrolls. Even a moderately sized work would take an entire shelf that a codex of a few inches thick could accomplish. You could, of course, create really long scrolls, but that would make finding particular passages difficult. Scrolls are easy to make and hard to use, codices are hard to make and easy to use; so once it became desirable to mass-produce books that could be used frequently, codices win, especially once the process could be aided mechanically. --Jayron32 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Scrolls are a pain in the ass." - I disagree. As I'm reading a long text, such as this one, I use my wheel to scroll up and down, rather than the PgUp and PgDn keys. I don't think I'm the only one. — Sebastian 05:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not paper wound around sticks of wood. To scroll, you drag your index finger across a little wheel. Had the ancients been able to wind through scrolls so easily, they may have not had need for codices. Now, take a 500 page codex and put it on a single sheet of paper, wind it around two sticks, and find chapter 17. Then skip ahead to Chapter 25. Then go back to cross reference something in chapter 12. Not so fun with a real scroll. --Jayron32 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would keep 35 chapters in one scroll; they're usually kept one chapter per scroll and stashed away neatly in shelves. The only disadvantage of that is that it takes more space to store. But conversely, you can do some things with scrolls that you can't with books. I, for one, always wished to have this as a real scroll, not just in a book. — Sebastian 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're back at the same problem already noted: One shelf holds one book, or one shelf holds 30 books. The codex wins again. Other than the same sort of nostalgia that drives the SCA types to put on faux chainmail and beat each other with foam-encased PVC pipes, there's really not much demand for scrolls. Indeed, given modern trends, there will someday not be much need for codices in the same regard. In a thousand years, people will feel that deforesting the earth to keep knowledge on paper will seem as antiquaited as scrolls do today. --Jayron32 19:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carving words on boulders is best... rock is more durable than paper. Granted portability is a bit of an issue, but portability is over-rated anyway... no need to bring the text to the readers when it is easier to bring readers to the text (readers are self-portable). And with a boulder there is less chance of accidentally leaving your important presentation behind in the taxi. Blueboar (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to focus on Christianity, it kind of makes sense. Unlike most religions, Christianity actually formally created the bible - i.e. they decided what would go into it and established that as their canon - and that naturally lends itself more to codex form. Other religions tended to pass down their canons in oral history, and scrolls are more functional for quick transcriptions of spoken material. --Ludwigs2 14:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if ancient scrolls carried a message like Be kind, please rewind? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detectives series Scandanavia England Netherlands Belgium

How many fictional detectives are there in Scandinavian literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know one and that is Kurt Wallander of Sweden. How many fictional detectives are there in British literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know two and they Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes of course. How many fictional detectives are there in Dutch literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know one that is Grijpstra and De Gier. Is there any fictional detectives in Belgian literature of crime or mystery fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.97 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional detectives is crying out for some subcategories by nationality... --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British category alone would be huge: Colin Dexter (Inspector Morse), P. D. James (Inspector Dalgleish). In fact, there is a whole category just for the English writers, most of whom have at least one repeating detective character. Bielle (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar category for the Scottish writers. Bielle (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Van der Valk based in Holland? I can't remember, I was only young at the time... --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perhaps a little older and remember that indeed it was, TammyMoet.

Detective/crime fiction is a very popular genre in many cultures (and I doubt that most of it is translated between languages), so the answers to the OP's question ("How many . . .") will likely run from at least dozens to hundreds or even thousands for each 'national' literature. Random responders' random suggestions here will not give anything like a true picture - I could (if I had the time) probably compile a list running close to a hundred (mostly British) just from the books on my own shelves, and I'm not even primarily a detective fiction fan (SF & Fantasy being my main interest). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.98 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A E W Mason's Inspector Hanaud Kittybrewster ☎ 11:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're allowed TV shows, there is Sarah Lund from Denmark in The Killing (Danish TV series). --Viennese Waltz 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist, the main characters in the Millennium series from Sweden. He's an investigative journalist and she's a hacker, which makes them both detectives of a sort. --Viennese Waltz 12:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought of them and rejected them. Also a certain French priest. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agaton Sax from Sweden.
Sleigh (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Clouseau Kittybrewster ☎ 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's French. --Viennese Waltz 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't add the tv shows. I only want the novel series that features the main fictional detective like Kurt Wallander of the Wallander series, and Grijpstra and De Gier of the Amsterdam Cops series. 65.92.153.97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Van der Valk article says "Based on the characters and atmosphere (but not the plots) of the novels of Nicolas Freeling, the first series was shown in 1972". I suspect many TV series will have a similar basis. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioner, everyone loves a mystery. Me, I'm thoroughly intrigued as to how you're counting Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes as 2, and counting Grijpstra and De Gier as 1. If we give you 10 names, are you likely to say "OK, that's 4, now I need 6 more"? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marple and Holmes are English. Grijpstra and de Gier are guys I've never heard of. Poirot is Belgian. Buchan was rascist, not that it is relevant. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the question was about British literature, Kitty. Marple, Poirot and Holmes all came from the pens of British writers (Agatha Christie x 2, and Conan Doyle). It wasn't about the nationalities of the fictional detectives themselves. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 65.92.155.163|65.92.155.163 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Simenon was Belgian so Inspector Maigret qualifies. Sussexonian (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIIII

Roman numerals#IIII on clocks says "Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained." If that is so, did he have his subjects write his number as XIIII, as well? — Sebastian 05:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is but one of a number of "suggested explanations" for why we have IIII and not IV on clocks. I realise this bit of info is sourced, but it's to a 1947 book and I seriously doubt its veracity if we can't find anything more modern, or alternatively, from Louis XIV's time, to confirm it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Part of why I was asking this was because this bit adds to my mistrust in the source. — Sebastian 06:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "smaller unit to the left = subtraction" convention in Roman numerals (i.e. IV, IX, XL, XC, CD, CM etc.) was more medieval than ancient Roman, and there has been a certain degree of variability down through the centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, even certain roman numerals like D and M are relatively modern inventions, originally IƆ was 500 and CIƆ was 1000. I think typographers originally started using D and M to refer to these, so as to use less type. --Jayron32 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyongyang Overwhelmed with Grief at Demise of Kim Jong Il

What to make of these videos: http://www.kcna.kp/userAction.do?action=videoindex&lang=eng&newsyear=2011&newsno=1281141 ?

I don't think people were that upset about Princess Diana passing! Is this legitimate? Staged? Double-think? The Masked Booby (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one pervasive problem I see in how people talk about North Korea, it's that they apply their own feelings, their own understanding of the world, to North Korean citizens. They've lived in a very, very different environment from any of us, so they are, you could say 'wired up' differently. The result being that people assume they are being insincere, or are crazy, or addled from years of oppression. Suffice to say, I don't think it's that simple. You can hear of older generations of Russians hankering for the days of Stalinist rule; not everyone objects as strenuously to totalitarianism as we Westerners like to think they should. Perhaps there's some comfort in having the boundaries of your life strictly limited; you don't have to think or worry too much, and perhaps you won't be tormented by unfulfilled ambition. Vranak (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While many people experience spontaneous and demonstrative grief on the death of their country's leader, I would suggest that evidence within that video indicates that the gathering filmed was relatively small by protest standards; there is also some evidence (glasses frames, etc.) that the people in the video are part of the nomenklatura of juche society. The beneficiaries of juche would be more likely to experience grief, particularly as it is an acceptable way for them to express their fears, doubts and insecurities in a time of leadership change. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that both the above replies miss the point. It is perfectly clear from the video that the crying is fake, acted, sham, a put-up job. They were probably told to go out there and pretend to cry for the cameras. --Viennese Waltz 08:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are people in that video genuinely crying, there are people who've worked themselves up to genuine crying, there are people who've worked themselves up to fake crying, and there are people hoping that the poor quality of their crying will be accepted because of their willingness to cry in public. Go play soapbox games elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless one of you is Dr. Cal Lightman, quit speculating about if people are "really" crying or not. The honest question is how many people truly believe the party line, how many absolutely don't, and how many, I suspect the silent majority, play along so they can get along, as with many compelled social norms. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were equally extraordinary scenes of grief at the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a totalitarian leader who was equally demonised by the West (although Iranians have very different standards of behaviour at funerals compared to British or Americans; I'm not sure what Koreans normally do). If the British media's confused and inconstant obsession with Diana (who was demonised as often as praised) can make British people react so passionately to her death, think how much more passionately they'll react if you have a deliberate and orchestrated propaganda scheme telling you every day how wonderful the leader is. Additionally, Kim's death was very sudden, which will intensify reactions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in the Soviet Union were genuinely upset and worried for the future when Stalin died (though not necessarily inclined to great public shows of weeping)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, folks weep when something bad (or even good) happens that triggers that emotion. When someone dies, are you crying over their having died? Or are you crying over having lost them? With loss comes uncertainty. Outsiders might view North Korea as a totalitarian dictatorship, while many of its citizens (as with the USSR) are relatively OK with that, as long as they understand the rules. Once a dictator dies, the rules become unclear, and all kinds of emotions can be triggered, including a real sense of loss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, as bad as things were under him, they could get a lot worse. Imagine if a power struggle between generals erupts and they resort to using their nuclear weapons during the ensuing civil war. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who they use them on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-written article I recently read on the nature of Kim's style of despotism. The author suggests that North Korea "may even be called the most successful totalitarianism in modern history." As hard as it is for the Western mindset to grasp, personality cults actually do work to some extent. —Akrabbim^talk 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are only successful if their sole goal is maintaining power. As far as improving the lives of their citizens, say relative to South Korea, they are a dismal failure. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a New York Times article on this topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the same thing happened with Stalin died. It is very common in countries where there are strong, state-enforced cults of personality, especially if one is talking about a leader that has been in charge for a reasonably long time. (I'm not sure anyone shed many tears over Andropov, for example.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name origins

I'm a bit of a Star Trek fan. So when I recently saw Alexander Rodchenko's name for the first time, it reminded me of Alexander Rozhenko. This led me to a couple questions:

Are the two surnames pronounced the same?
Is there any evidence that the ST character got his name from the writers due to the sculptor?

I've looked in the usual places but haven't been able to find anything that links the two. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 11:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's Cyrillic "Родченко" vs. "Роженко", I don't think they'd be pronounced the same in any language that I know about... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'd probably be pronounced approximately the same in Mongolian, where ж writes the non-aspirated /tʃ/. Anyway, if both names are Russian, they'd sound roughly like ROTT-chinkuh and ROH-žinkuh respectively (where ž is roughly the "s" in "treasure" or the "g" in "genre"). --Theurgist (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to know about humanity and sexual questions

hello sir,

que:1) i am extremely eager to know the exact(perfect) definition of honesty.

que:2)Is sexuality, i mean to watch sexual movies and having sex to the another person (not our spouse) is fair or sin?

i am studied in diploma in mechanical engineering and i am not married but i want to know these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.144.158 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See honesty and sexual intercourse. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your second question will very much depend on your personal morality and, perhaps, your religious faith. These are not questions with simple yes/no answers. --Viennese Waltz 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography, Premarital sex and Infidelity mention some of the views. Your IP address is Indian so you may also be interested in Category:Sexuality in India. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convicting John Doe

If some unknown person gets caught, but not identified, maybe because he does reveal his namel, how can he be charged and convicted? Would the government issue a new name for him? 88.8.69.150 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you meant to write "does not reveal his name". This has come up before, see here for a lengthy discussion based on English law (other countries will obviously vary). I'm fairly sure there was a more recent discussion on this topic as well, but I can't find it right now. --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, here you go. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In at least some U.S. jurisdictions, prosecutors have indicted DNA in the hope that it will someday be matched to a criminal with a conventional identity... <http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/dec/20/timeless-evidence-heats-up-cold-case/>. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This happened to D.B. Cooper--his real identity is unknown, but he was still indicted in absentia. Meelar (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party Khalistan movement

Is BJP against the Khalistan independence movement despite they were against the 1984 anti-Sikh riot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it is well possible to both A) oppose secession from India and B) consider it morally wrong to massacre Sikh civilians in Delhi. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. I'm not to familiar with the exact postures taken by BJP/Sangh Parivar during 1984, what type of statements the issued at the time, but it should be noted that the BJP/Sangh Parivar was much weaker in 1984 than today. --Soman (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-violence murals in Northern Ireland

Excuse my total ignorance here, but matters Northern Irish are not my strong point.

When the media discusses matters Northern Ireland, they often print photos of pro-IRA murals in Belfast. These murals openly glorify violence and guns. Why are they tolerated by the Northern-Irish government? I can't easily imagine Israel, for example, allowing pro-Hamas terrorism murals to be left long in East Jerusalem without getting covered up. And if it does happen, it shouldn't!

I have no problem with murals promoting a "united Ireland", but I never understood how depictions glorifying guns, balaclavas, and murderous violence are allowed to exist without being disturbed. (I have the same problem with murals glorifying anti-catholic or pro-loyalist violence - I'm not being sectarian here). In most countries, you'd be done for incitement, I would think, if you produced such material. What am I missing here? Why are blatantly pro-violence murals tolerated by the authorities, without being covered over? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would in the past have been one battle too far, for the authorities to seek to impose its idea of exterior decoration during the troubles. Sure, it's incitement, but in an era of the armalite and the boobytrap, it's small beer. More recently, in part, they're the status quo and there's a discussion about their heritage and tourist value; however the authorities are, on balance, trying to get rid of the worst. The evidence from recent BBC news stories is mixed:

2011 - New paramilitary mural going up
2008 - Paramilitary replaced by King Billy
2007 - Some general discussion, tracing their history back to 1908
2006 - Removal of a loyalist mural
2006 - #3.3m for removal of murals

--Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many US cities have laws requiring property owners to remove graffiti expressing racial hatred, promoting violence, or promoting gang activity. Paint and paint sprayers are cheap. Slightly more expensive are devices for removing paint with mild abrasives such as walnut shell powder. If the murals stay up, then for some reason the authorities must want them there. Edison (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Tagishsimon says, it's not a question of the authorities "wanting them there". In the charged atmosphere of Belfast, the authorities had to pick their battles, and they would presumably have chosen not to remove them because to do so could have inflamed the situation. --Viennese Waltz 16:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically at the height of the Troubles when the worst violence was being carried out, the murals were rather crude affairs such as a roughly-scrwaled Brits Out on a wall in nationalist areas with a Union Jack or badly-rendered King Billy-on-his-white-horse adorning loyalist neighbourhood walls and gables. Now they are often elaborate and more professional. Then again, back in the 1970s and 1980s Belfast had very few tourists (apart from the occasional intrepid Scots-Irish-American on an ancestor hunt). I can remember how people stared at me in the early 1980s when I snapped pics of murals in Belfast!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep they're a big tourist attraction now and bring in good money. One can book holidays to look at all these attractions. I don't think anyone has set up a theme park yet though ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument could be made that those murals are commemorating history, rather than inciting new violence. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Unionist murals in Northern Ireland, e.g. [1][2]. You could also compare it to Marching season in Northern Ireland, a Protestant recreation that is often seen to incite violence and sectarian tensions, and which has proved very difficult to ban or mitigate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teeny tiny books

Ages ago (maybe 15 years), I saw a doll that had a tiny real Good News Bible, complete with illustrations. I suppose it might have only been the New Testament, but it was still impressive at about 5 cm high and completely in proportion. Is there a term for such tiny editions of proper books, that I could use as a search term? It was most impressive because it didn't seem to be simplified: just printing very small and yet readable if you had good eyes. 86.163.212.160 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Miniature book article, and also there is this article, [3], which has a lot more info--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Book size indicates that the standard name may be something like "Sexagesimo-quarto", i.e. 1/64th of a full standard printed page, about 24 inches (61 cm) by 15 inches (38 cm). --Jayron32 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in some of the information in the article Queen Mary's Dolls' House. Somewhere I or my parents possess a copy of an abbreviated but nonetheless quite conventional dictionary which, if memory serves, measures about 3x2 cm. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.13 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for Anti-Homosexuality

What are some arguments people may have to deny homosexuals gay marriage or to say that homosexuality is sinful? 64.229.180.189 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For:

1) People should be free to do as they wish.

2) Homosexuality is (at least in part) biologically inherited, so that means "God made them that way", and they should therefore do as God wants.

3) Might reduce diseases like AIDS, by encouraging long-term relationships rather than one-night stands. Since AIDS can spread beyond the gay community, this affects the health of all.

4) Many of the general arguments in favor of marriage also favor gay marriage, like "provides for social stability (especially in the context of raising kids)".

Against:

A) Tradition.

B) Religion. Nearly all religions teach that homosexual acts are immoral.

C) Might "convince" people to become gay who otherwise wouldn't. (There's not much evidence to support this, although persecution of homosexuals may keep them "in the closet".)

D) Might lead to adoptions by gay couples. Of course, this argument presumes that this is a bad thing. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for saying that nearly all religions teach that homosexuality is immoral? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all do, but that's hardly surprising considering they have a common origin. In what way does Buddhism (the world's 3rd largest religion) or Hinduism (its 4th largest) condemn homosexuality? Admittedly I don't know much about either religion, but Buddhist texts don't seem to mention homosexuality at all, and don't emphasize procreation as the purpose of sex: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/T/Trembath/buddhismAndHomosexualityTrembath.html. Our Hinduism and sexuality article claims that Hindu myths have portrayed homosexual acts as natural and joyful, and many Hindu temples have depictions of same-sex intercourse. And if homosexuality contradicted the religions of the Greeks or Romans, they certainly hid it pretty well. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more complicated. Most religions preach against extra-marital heterosexual relations also. It has to do with procreation vs. recreation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem of the patriarchy, which is a foundational assumption for many traditional religions. In a culture in which it is assumed that marriage is a union of woman and man, each of whom have different and clearly defined duties and roles, and in which the man has authority over the woman, the entire concept of marriage is subverted by the existence of unions of equal partners. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women "submitting" to men is a timeless concept, yes. Those who most vociferously oppose gay "marriage" also tend to oppose feminism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (popularly known as the 'Proposition 8' ruling) is a surprisingly fascinating read for a legal document, and I recommend it to anyone interested in this issue. It includes the following list of reasons presented to California voters for making the marriage of same-sex couples illegal:

Denial of marriage to same-sex couples preserves marriage;
Denial of marriage to same-sex couples allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to recognize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples;
Denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children;
The ideal child-rearing environment requires one male parent and one female parent;
Marriage is different in nature depending on the sex of the spouses, and an opposite-sex couple’s marriage is superior to a same-sex couple’s marriage; and
Same-sex couples’ marriages redefine opposite-sex couples’ marriages.

The ruling goes on to explain, in detail, why these reasons are either not supported by data, or are not consistent with U.S. law. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A supposedly "liberal" U.S. Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago that the draft, although appearing to be a violation of the slavery/involuntarily-servitude amendment, was valid because of the constitutional power of Congress to raise armies. The courts can get creative when they approach a case with preconceived assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Anti-LGBT rhetoric... AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some may draw a distinction between being against gay marriage and being against all forms of legal recognition of same-sex unions. There are some who say that they are against a "redefinition of marriage" even if they are OK with civil unions. When Canada was debating going from civil unions to gay marriage, one Conservative opponent said, "When women got equal rights, they didn't change the definition of the word 'man'" or something along those lines. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently made a lovely point about this on PostSecret. <soapbox> But seriously, as to "sin" and "arguments" against same-sex marriage, I tend to agree with people like B. R. Myers, who puts it very neatly: religious people have every right to call homosexuality a sin, but if they want to argue from religion, they should stay there. If they venture out into reasoned debate, it's pointless to argue against them, because whenever they feel they're losing the battle in the open field, they will just retreat back into the citadel of Revealed Truth. So when religious people tell you homosexuals suffer from depression or spread disease or whatever, just don't listen to them. They don't really care if it's one way or the other.</soapbox>--Rallette (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One argument that hasn't been mentioned is the naturalistic argument. It goes something like this: the purpose of our genitals is procreation. To use them for other purposes is unnatural and betrays their biological purpose. This argument fails because of the naturalistic fallacy. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps, the phallus fallacy ? StuRat (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a weak argument for a variety of reasons: It would be the rare man that doesn't also use his genitals for urination, so the religious view that morals demand that genitals be monofunctional ought to be a non-starter. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I feel like indentation has been butchered in this discussion, so I have not indented at all. But this is in response to the original question.] As far as I know, there have been many different arguments that homosexual activity (i.e., sexual activity between members of the same sex) is wrong or bad. I shall mention two with which I am familiar. Here's a basic argument from an ascetic on ethical grounds which has come in a different formulations for some time: A1) If something is not right, it is wrong. A2) Seeking pleasure is not one of the right things to do. A3) Homosexual activity is done only for pleasure. Therefore: A4) Homosexual activity is wrong. Premise A2 could be established in a number of ways (Revelatory, i.e., God commands it; Formalist, i.e, it is a contradiction in the deontic modality to make pleasure seeking your maxim; Consequentialist, i.e., seeking pleasure results in less utility overall; Intuitionist, i.e., seeking pleasure does not have the basic, intuitable "good" quality; etc.)

The other argument I shall mention is a Natural Law type argument. This has also come in many different formulations: B1) What's good is what is natural, and what is bad is what is unnatural. B2) Homosexual activity is unnatural. Therefore, B3) Homosexual activity is bad. Premise B1 could be established in a number of different ways. For example (something like this is given by Aristotle): C1) The good of a thing is not instrumental for some other aspect of that same thing, but rather the good is for what everything is done. Therefore, in other words, C2) The good of a thing is the final end of a thing that performs its natural function. Therefore, C3) The good is natural, and, conversely, the unnatural is bad. Premise B2 could also be established in a number of different ways. The following has been given ad nauseam: D1) The physical structure or evolutionary history of things can demonstrate their natural function. D2) The physical structure and evolutionary history of the penis and vagina are such that it is clear their natural functions are (in part) the conjoining in sexual intercourse. D3) The physical structure and evolutionary history of the penis and vagina are such that is is clear that neither's natural function is to be conjoined with or masturbated by other body parts or things. Therefore, D3) The natural function of these organs is (partly) heterosexual intercourse, and, conversely, their natural function is not homosexual activity.

Keep in mind that such arguments have wider implications for sexuality than just these conclusions drawn for the case of homosexuality. If you want to delve more into these issues and for counter-arguments to these, try Google searches on, for example, "natural law homosexuality", "asceticism homosexuality", "homosexuality hedonism", "homosexuality pleasure ethics", "homosexuality plato ethics". Thanks for reading.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]