Miscellaneous desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 9[edit]

How do you accurately describe yourself if you're a socialist - but also hold nationalist views?[edit]

Obviously, referring to yourself as a "national-socialist" is likely to cause confusion and offense. --146.198.142.19 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "socialist patriot"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Social nationalist"? Still close, but perhaps not close enough. Like how therapists generally aren't confused with the rapists. You might still get mistaken for these guys, but they're less famous, so less so. And if you do, they're still generally less offensive than Nazis. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just "socialist"? There's nothing anti-nationalist (patriotic, loyal, etc) about socialism. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical proper socialism is a global movement, nationalism is such a petty and pointless thing. I'm a socialist and a global citizen, who happened to have been born in the Netherlands and live in the UK. Words like 'nationalist' and 'patriot' just indicate nonsensical attachment to a social construct, to which your 'allegiance' was determined by a random event (your birth). A good socialist should't be a nationalist or a patriot. (And puts salt in their porridge before someone else makes that joke) Fgf10 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That theory works fine until your country gets invaded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that socialism is incompatible with nationalism. --Viennese Waltz 08:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive and irrelevant tangent

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No, it isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it usually is. The state is an artificial construct, and is not a relevant issue for many/most true socialist philosophies. That's one of the [many] reasons why so many countries' establishment have been scared to the willies of socialism down the years. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of civilization is an artificial construct. Where on this planet is socialism incompatible with nationalism? Certainly not the UK, which has had socialized medicine for nearly 70 years, but there's no shortage of national pride. Or maybe I should ask, Where on this planet is your theory of socialism practiced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that North Korea is one of the most socialistic states in the world, yet nationalism there is not only strong, it's required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think that "socialized medicine" (for which the proper term is free health care) is a sign of a socialist country? Hahaha. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a lot dumber than you are, so eddycate me: name a country that matches you definition of socialism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about individual countries. It's about the theory of socialism and nationalism as political philosophies. Read Dweller's comment above: "the state...is not a relevant issue for many/most true socialist philosophies." --Viennese Waltz 12:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, pray, is a true socialist philosophy? DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he's really telling us is that "true" socialism is some sort of "ideal" which is not practiced in the real world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DH: I would have used "pure" rather than "true". @BB: once again, I'm not talking about the real world, I'm talking about theory (which, believe it or not, is what the OP was asking about). --Viennese Waltz 12:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the OP asked was what do you call someone who's both socialist and nationalist. And you proceeded to give him your personal opinion that the two are incompatible. Supposing they were compatible, what would the answer be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you call a pure socialist philosophy? I know loads of socialists, and no two of them can agree what socialism is. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, other than what is written at socialism. --Viennese Waltz 12:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where it says, "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people calling things socialist, but this doesn't mean they are. Some people call Obama a socialist for crying out loud! Americans simply don't understand socialism. And yes, it is incompatible with nationalism. Fgf10 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name a place in the world which practices your kind of socialism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this thread. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The search for "true socialism" tends to be rather like the search for a true Scotsman. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Left-wing nationalism - most of the parties listed in that article can be described as democratic socialist. Tevildo (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A socialist and a nationalist, or a nationalistic socialist? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or socialist-nationalist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions vary, but generally: "socialism" is the belief that the "means of production" should be publicly owned and operated for the good of society as a whole, "nationalism" used to mean the belief that each nation should have its own state run for the benefit of its people rather than e.g. being part of a foreign empire (but more recently tends to be used to mean aggressive national chauvenism), and "patriotism" means love and/or defence of your country (whatever those mean in practice). They aren't inherently mutually exclusive. I belive Marx argued that Capitalism was so internationally entrenched that it would be impossible to achieve Socialism unless the whole world did it at the same time. But in general, I don't see an fundamental reason of definition why a state couldn't implement socialism on its own. And the existance of a state doesn't in itself imply hostility or contempt for other states or their people - even if you do "love" it. Iapetus (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term national socialism arose in counter-distinction to marxist socialism, which portrayed itself as a movement of the proletariat class internationally regardless of ethnicity. User Soman might be able to comment on this or point the way. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism is an economic construct, apart from its adoption by ideological movements within or beyond geopolitical borders. Labor Zionism, largely socialist in theory and practice, was a thriving movement in the European Jewish community in the late 19th C. and early 20th C. and continued in Israel, notably in the kibbutz movement that at its peak included 4.5% of the population. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's Left-wing nationalism, as has been correctly said. And socialism is not incompatible with nationalism. Most left-wing movements in the 3rd World (Nasser, Fatah, Tamils, Kurds) combined a left-wing program (social progress, secularism, wimmin's issues, technological modernization, mass literacy, anti-imperialism (how to stop being America's b**ch) etc) with an ideology of national liberation. Asmrulz (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to lose fat without doing aerobic exercise and eating plainty of protein?[edit]

No medical advice.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Large amount of protein intake is known for increasing the loading of kidney. Too much protein is bad for people with decreased kidney disease. Besides, it seems there is a link between low blood sugar and heart failure for people with heart disease "Hypoglycaemia and heart failure ... Hypoglycaemia has been reported with congestive cardiac failure" [1]. And "In general, blood sugar drops after exercise and is lower for the next 24 to 48 hours" [2]. If one has both kidney and heart disease what else he can do to reduce his body fat? - Justin545 (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think an answer to those specific questions would be giving medical advice. Iapetus (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, everyone's metabolism is different, so no one here is in any position to make specific recommendations to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not asking for any medication or medical advice. The question is asking for the other possibility of losing fat. Perhaps, just read the title and ignore the rest. - Justin545 (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diapers[edit]

At what age is a toddler/child typically aware that he/she has soiled their diaper? Is there an average age that they realised their diapers are wet/full? --Poëtius (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of age. There is no age to not be aware of such thing. The answer is, a child is aware of it as soon as their diapers are soiled. The answer is, a child, no matter his or her age, is aware of it when something feels bad. Akseli9 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a range of tolerance for this discomfort. If this is so, it would complicate the question, as awareness might not translate into an immediately articulated toddler's complaint. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Poetius is asking at what age range do children start reporting "i made a poopie" or the like, and not when do they develop the sense of touch, Akseli9. Googling "diaper training time scale" gets answers like this from WebMD. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]