Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 5

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.

October 5

Divorce in Interracial Marriage

What are the divorce rates for asian-white couples, black-white couples, and asian-black couples in the U.S. and Canada? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the sources listed in Divorce demography would be a good starting point. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do find stats comparing these groups, watch out for confounding factors like age at marriage, family income or length of schooling. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The missing piece would seem to be, how would those divorce rates compare with same-race couples? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball_Bugs, Divorce demography doesn't provide the information about interracial divorces. Does anybody have any information? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a report on the subject. I haven't read it but this blog says it indicates inter-racial marriages are somewhat less likely to succeed that same-race marriages. I don't think it's broken down by "asian-white", "black-white" and "asian-black" couples though. TastyCakes (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives to market price

Is there any alternative to setting the price through supply and demand? What do capitalism critics propose as an alternative? The most arguments that I hear refer to vague methods like: "paying the right price" which is "the fair price" which is "a reasonable price" which is "not exploiting people." In the article linked above, the alternative measures of value seem to me directly based on supply and demand, but adding time to them.--Quest09 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In a non-market economy there would be little use for money. The most efficient approach would probably for the government to directly allocate goods. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. You make what the government says, you consume what the government says.203.214.104.166 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is clearly wrong, as there have been many attempts to provide alternative to supply and demand, and all of them have used money. In fact almost all economies have overridden the 'laws' of supply and demand in some instances, though in modern western economies it's pretty rare.

The simplest examples is price regulation, where the government enforces limits on what can be charged. Rent control might be an example. In the wake of recent global rises in the price of food, some countries instituted limits on how much could be charged for staples. I believe that communist countries quite regularly fixed prices. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an academic literature on this, "the co-ordination problem". See for example Parecon (interesting idea, dreadful article), which proposes an automatic regulation. Pat Devine proposed instead "participatory planning". I think after the Soviet experience local-level approaches rather than national-level approaches are usually proposed. Most economists interested in post-capitalist models assume that money will continue, perhaps alongside LETS and other kinds of "funny money". But they also often say that more parts of our lives (caring for people, education...) should be taken out of the economy, as Andre Gorz argued in Critique of Economic Reason. So reciprocity would play a larger role than buying and selling. For a really radical view of a future non-economy though, I'd recommend the classic News from Nowhere.

Prices aren't set according to supply and demand. Prices are set to whatever price will maximise profits (assuming a completely free market), what that price is does depend on supply and demand but not by choice - that's just the way economics works. There are plenty of alternatives to free markets, though. --Tango (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Market price in the Bible

This question is related to the question above. The Bible says something about trade, mainly about not short-changing your trade partners. I vaguely remember something about not increasing the price of people in need (I don't know if in an emergency or poor people). However, does it says something about market price or how to set a price?--Quest09 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the Hebrew bible is dealing with prices. There are alot of economic rules in the Jewish Talmud (including the first known formulation of limited companies) and also detail entire price and maximum profit policy (foor food, clothes and etc), as for the bible I know that it command sepcifically not to bias scales in the market and many other things, I can check it out for you if you need. --Gilisa (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I know, in the meanwhile, in ancient Israel the bible forbid collection of interest on loans. So, it may effect signficantly on inflation and deflation rates, keeping prices relatively constatnt. The idea of setting prices by supply and demand is not only human made, sometimes when the supply is too low or too high it's meaning that the work and investment you have to put on the commodities production is too high or too low, respectively.--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still the case in Islam under stricter interpretations of Sharia law. See Islamic finance and Islamic banking. I saw a BBC news story about specialty "Sharia compliant banks" in the UK. They do things like provide an alternative to mortgages where the bank effectively owns the house and the client "rents to own". TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still the case in few Israeli and Jewish banks as well. However, if you took loan/mortgage in $ you have to return it in $, so if you don't have your income in $ you may earn or loose as a function of changes in the exchange rates. The Sharia laws were naturaly affected from the Bible. --Gilisa (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The lack of significant economic growth (economies only really grew in line with populations until the industrial revolution, and populations didn't grow that quickly back then) would also tend to reduce inflation. (The causes of inflation are really complicated and different models include different factor, but economic growth is one of the factors that sometimes appears.) --Tango (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

These models are never 100% valid however they are interesting. Nonproportional growth on one side of the market would lead probably to inflation (but it would be less signficant as cash flow is high) while equal growth of the market would reduce inflation. As for the loans in foreign currency, they are given in local currency-this way banks profit from the exchange rates.--Gilisa (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution theory and Bible

Recently I thought about it and I talked to a lot of people and just about everyone claims to be a christian, but most of them believe in dinosaurs and evolution theory.

Is it possible to be believe that God created people from Adam and Eve, but to believe in evolution theory at the same time? And is there a philosopher or a book on this issue which explains this in detail? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible? Yes. Humans are capable of believing in most things. That being said, the article on Theistic evolution will pretty much answer all of your questions, especially the Christianity section. Essentially, evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but most don't take it literally anyway. As for your specific Adam and Eve question, it's a little more difficult to reason through, but most commonly (mentioned in the Islam section of that article) is the concept of a "guided evolution" where evolution takes place, but God has guided it along, thereby ensuring Mankind's special place among the creatures of Earth. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's realy possible. There are many books on that matter, some supprot only evolution (like Ever Since Darwin), other support the combination of evolution and Bible (like "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder) and some support only the Bible and argue that evolution couldn't possibily take place (like Darwin's Black Box). There is a huge debate on this matter in the American society. Not along time ago I saw movie called expelled that was filmed by Creationists, I realy can't understand what the all commotion is about.--Gilisa (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record Darwin's Black Box does not argue that evolution could not take place - it argues that evolution could not be responsible for all the highly complex structures observed in nature, DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

De facto there is no difference. If evolution may be responsible to X but not to Y, God responsible for sure to Y but not necessarily to X then the most parsimonious theory would be that God responsible for both X and Y.--Gilisa (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be your view, but it is not what the book argued. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on that.--Gilisa (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to believe just about anything. I know devout Christians who are perfectly comfortable with the notions of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and of evolution. They don't believe in the Eden story as anything other than a valuable old story, but do believe that God has a special view of humans. The notion that Christianity and evolution are incompatible is largely a fundamentalist US one — the Roman Catholic church and the mainline Protestant ones accept evolution. They might believe that God steered it, but that would be another matter. PhGustaf (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf, what's so fundamentalist about saying that these two schools contradict each other? --Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that you can't take the Bible stories literally and still believe in evolutionary theory; but you can take them as allegorical stories. Complicating matters is that there are two different and self-contradictory creation stories within Genesis itself. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Probably the part where s/he says "the Roman Catholic church and the mainline Protestant ones accept evolution." It's not wrong to say that Creationism and Evolution are contradictory, because they are, but it iswrong to say that it's a black and white issue. More often than not people take a little bit from both. Darwin himself, although he struggled with the concept, put stock in the view of God acting through evolution. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I only know one creation stroy in Genesis.--Gilisa (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Read it closely. There are two stories. The second one starts about the third sentence of the second chapter. The chronologies are different. And the dead giveaway is the Eloist vs. the Yahwist words for "God". If you think I'm making this up, they explained this to us in Sunday school, decades ago. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree, but that's one strange Sunday School you went to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, Bugs is right, in the sense that (at the very least) the story is told twice. There's nothing definitively contradictory, but the two are certainly from different perspectives. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a friend who is both a professor emeritus of geology and an Anglican lay preacher. He didn't get to be a professor emeritus by believing in any earthwide floods, or by believing that God left jokes in the rocks to taunt us. But he's still out leading services at rest homes. PhGustaf (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Genesis was cobbled together from (at least) two separate sources, in which the order of creation differed. These appear consecutively, telling different stories, in the Book of Genesis. I see our article avoids mentioning this directly. In Genesis 1: animals created first, then male and female humans are created together on the sixth day. God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2-3, the Eden story: God is referred to as Yahweh. Order of creation: male human, animals, female human. The orders of creation are incompatible. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. A lot of "literalists" are unaware of this. It reminds me of the old line, maybe from Senator Claghorn, "Son, I don't have time to read the Constitution, I'm too busy defending it!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you really remember Claghorn, you're pretty damn old. Here I am, proud of watching Ted Williams in his prime, and I get shown up by an Old Hoss Radbourne fan. PhGustaf (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does remembering Foghorn Leghorn count? Pretty much the same thing. Of course, these days legislators always read legislation before voting on it... :) - Nunh-huh 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, you are talking about P and J sources from the prespective of the biblical criticism. Well, I wasn't familiar with this exact story but I do know that for much before Spinoze estabished the biblical criticism, Jewish mysticism consider each Godly name as unique in its meaning. Mordechai Breuer have established his own paradigm to deal with this kind of allegations. For myself I can't how this specific stories contradict and more, what sense can be behind puting two contradicing stories one after the other?--Gilisa (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Hebrew writings often did not put as much emphasis in the chronology of events as our western minds would like to think they did. Gen 2:19 does not necessarily mean "and then God created the animals." Simply, Gen 2:1-19 says "God created Adam and he created animals and he sent them to Adam," not necessarily in that order. It doesn't contradict the chronology given in chapter 1 (which is one of the few places in the Hebrew where chronology is explicitly stated). —Akrabbim^talk 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like rationalization. I'll go by what our old church minister, a doctor of theology, had to say about it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And there's more to it than that. The first story just talks about humankind in general. The individuals, Adam and Eve, are in the second story, with its reverse chronology. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's about the chronolgy, but about deeper understanding of the text and the subtext. Sometimes it's hard to understand the language Hebrew Bible use in correctly even for native speakers of Hebrew. Modern Hebrew express times and quantities in what may seem as different from the Biblical one.--Gilisa (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear from reading it that there are two separate and contradictory stories. It's not just the chronology, it's other things too. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, I think, is that you can't legitimately say "I take this literally" and then say "except I don't take it literally when it is self-contradictory, then I say it's not to be taken literally". It's not that you can't find some rationalization, but that the process of rationalization necessarily involves being non-literal. -- Nunh-huh 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! Yes, that's it exactly. Those who claim to be literalists are forced to invent an explanation when literally taking it literally does not work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a tradition in the Jewish world according which the Bible start with the letter B (ב for בראשית(in the beginning) to indicate that we don't start from A. We just can't know what was before. There are things to be taken without commentary (such as the Ten Commandments) and others that need commentry that not everyone can give. As I read the "second" creation story, I realy don't sure that it mean to a different story, even it sounds complex indeed--Gilisa (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The dinosaur bones exist, we were once told at a Christian camp that Satan put them there. My belief as a Christian, is that they are not as old as they were thought to be. The change came with Darwin, grandson of Josiah Wedgwood and Erasmus Darwin, where they theorised that this supposed change in a species had to take a long time. They did not realise they were looking at many species. In short - God created all things, and did not employ Charles Darwin as His Evolutionary consultant. It is a shame that what is called a Theory is taught in schools as fact. Mathematicians had more respect for rigour than to call Fermat's little paragraphic entry anything other than a Theory until it was proven ultimately by 1994 by Dr. Andrew Wiles. World has only been going 6000 years. Amen. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell us another fairy tale. I like better what a friend of mine, a biology scientist and a devout Christian, had to say about evolution: "Evolution is how God works." Amen. The American. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the OP's question has been answered several times. Literal belief in the creation stories is not compatible with what science has discovered about the history of the earth and the universe. Treating the creation story as an allegory rather than being literal, can work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's rather unfortunate we teach gravity as a fact. It all started with Newton and his blasphemous ideas. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Theory" is the most definite thing science has, there are no absolute facts in science, just theories that have an overwhelming amount of evidence for them (such as evolution). Mathematicians actually did call that little paragraphic entry "Fermat's Last Theorem" - a theorem is a major mathematical result that has been proven. Originally that was because people gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he really had proven it, later is was just because that was the traditional name that everyone knew it was. That evolution takes a long time is determined by geologists who can work out the age of different layers of rock that the fossils are found in and physicists that can work out how long it must have taken for the radioactive isotopes (mainly Carbon-14) in the fossils to reach the measured levels. It is far from a supposition. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Treating the creation story as an allegory" is not good enough, you either believe it literaly or not. Of course I would be happy to kid myself that the creations stories are allegory, but they are not, they are either lies or the truth. Anyway, thanks for your answers everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you are free to feel it's not good enough for you and therefore if you look at the evidence I guess you will have to accept them as lies. Plenty of Christians don't agree and do consider the stories as allegory Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a middle ground. For example, the creation stories can be seen as nostalgia for a simpler time, when people lived off God's bounty (hunting and gathering) rather than becoming slaves to their own ingenuity (agriculture). The argument that the creation stories are either truth or lies, is a false argument, a red herring. The stories can easily be seen as "a little bit of both". Which, in fact, is a good characterization for much of the Old Testament. Thus, one can believe in the generic "truth" of the Old Testament and still accept evolution. It's only if you require that the creation stories be word-for-contradictory-word "true", that you obviously can't accept evolution. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that a Christian can really consider those stories as allegory, for then stories about Christ might also be allegories, for example Mary might not be a virgin if you look at it as an allegory. Then Resurrection might also be an alegory and so on, which means that only things that can be proven will are considered to be literate and then the whole point of FAITH is lost. Thats why its kind of impossible to believe believe that creation stories or Mary being sinless or Resurrection are allegories if you are a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Christianity is the most heterodox religion the world has ever known. I don't think a little skepticism about the literal nature of the Book of Genesis is going to kick anyone out of the definition of "Christian." It might remove you from certain specific sects, yes, but there are plenty of sects left to choose from. Catholics support Darwinian evolution, for example. --M@rēino 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And it's filled with Christians telling other Christians, "You can't be a Christian if..." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A few years ago I was at a talk given by the pastor of a local Presbyterian congregation[1]. He had had a year or two cut out of his career by, of all things, a trial for heresy. When asked what he'd do if called to the bedside of a dying Buddhist, he said he'd just say, "God loves you and will take care of you" rather than try for a last-minute baptism. The church management didn't like that. Then when ask whether Jesus' resurrection really happened or was an allegory, he said, "I'll go with the allegory." The management didn't like that either, so they busted him.

But he survived the trial, and his church seems to be going fine. I'm not going to suggest, though, that what plays in Palo Alto would play in more fundamentalist neighborhoods. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the whole thing about Mary being a virgin is likely a mistranslation (as the original word is more literally translated as "young woman," not "virgin"). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A line from "Silent Night"... "round young virgin mother"... →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a story about a child who drew a Nativity scene, with Mary and Joseph and the Kid and Magi and the lot. Off to the side was a plump little child. "Who's that?" "Oh, that's Round John Virgin". PhGustaf (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Isn't that "round yon virgin mother and child"? The "round" here is a preposition, not an adjective. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibly true of Isaiah 7:14 ("A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"), but we have the definite statement in Luke 1:34 - "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" If we take Luke as - well - Gospel, we have to conclude (at least) that Mary considered herself to be a virgin in the modern sense. Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no mistranslations in the Bible - that is, the Authorized King James version. To say the Bible does not line up with science is also nonsense. Within its pages we are taught that the earth is round and hangs in space. If anything, we should be checking whether science is in line with the Bible, and I say that as a Mathematician. I know my science, and I also believe that Pauls comment to Timothy about " Science falsely so called " is a direct reference to Evolution. Yes, it had not happened yet, but is it beyond God to inspire a man to write of things He can easily foresee ? If certain " Christians " have beguiled you, it is as the Bible predicted. Anything real will be subject to delusion and corruption. There are even fake Bible versions that alter the meaning of Scripture. Stick to the King James for a start, then read it with an open mind and heart. No amount of philosophizing and clever words will convince anyone of the truth of God more than genuinely seeking Him for yourself. In my 23 years as a Christian I have met good decent people and charlatans, as well as genuine curious people put off by the fakery. Do not lump all those who claim to be Christians together. It certainly is not easy being a Christian, but God has made sure it should not be impossible, and that most of it is down to Him. No one earns salvation by being a good person, since it is all God's Gift. Nor does one maintain it. How can any mere mortal keep up a thing he could not possibly attain on his own ? All God expects is that we actively seek Him. Just because Christ died on the Cross, doesn't mean all are saved automatically. One is not just so much condemned for their sins, as they are for actively rejecting God and His Son Jesus Christ. Yes, it is the sin that condemns, but all have sinned, and God gives a way out, so that He gets the glory for saving us who cannot save ourselves. All of this da Vinci Code nonsense doesn't help. The Bible makes it plain that Christ had to be a pure sacrifice, so to say He had a child is a blasphemous heresy. His Mother, the Virgin Mary, was indeed a virgin when she gave birth to Him, that is not beyond God, but later had other children, since Jesus was the oldest. This is because He had to be the Firstfruits. Jesus had four half brothers, at least two of whom wrote passages in the Bible. But even being His brother may not have guaranteed them. Each person still has to believe themselves and for themselves. Ladies and Gentlemen, I realise the Bible is hard to understand, but do not be tempted to try one of those false translations in modern speech. The King James is fine, because in any true church there will be people to help with it. There may be many denominations that preach the truth of God's Word, but if they are genuine, they still preach the ONLY WAY OF SALVATION, and that is Jesus Christ. One may ask, why then does a God fearing nation like Samoa suffer ? Why does God allow such things ? Interesting that when it is good, creation is taken to be the work of Evolution, but when bad things occur, they have to be Acts Of God. The only Acts OF God and His Apostles are the 28 chapters in the New Testament book of the same name. It seems God gets all the blame, but none of the credit. Look at how complicated Nature is. 200 years ago. Mr. Paley pointed all that out. None of it could be bt accident. You will either believe or you won't. Fair enough. God gives us a choice. But at least hear it out properly. I have. I have thought long and hard about other things and beliefs. A true Christian is not narrow minded. Then I can say as the Apostle Paul said so to Timothy " I know whom I have believed ..." That is, he did not just choose something, but it was give due consideration, but once done so, now his mind is made up. Yes make up your minds, but not as apple pie beds that will tangle your thoughts. I welcome discussion, but I too now know Whom I have believed. Amen. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Apple pie bed" is an image I've never come across before. With the right partner and ice cream or cheese, depending, it's not that bad an image. You seem to be associated with the King-James-Only_Movement. Fine for you, but most of us aren't. PhGustaf (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels in <<Parents who killed their children>>?

Why?, she didn't kill them. The one who killed the children was Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger. He poisoned the children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.87.202 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

The following day, on 1 May 1945, Magda and Joseph Goebbels drugged their six children with morphine and killed them by breaking cyanide capsules in their mouths. Accounts differ over how involved Magda Goebbels was in the killing of her children. Some accounts claimed that the SS doctor Ludwig Stumpfegger crushed the cyanide capsules into the children's mouths, but as no witnesses to the event survived it is impossible to know this. O'Donnell concluded that although Stumpfegger was probably involved in drugging the children, Magda Goebbels killed them herself. O'Donnell suggested that witnesses blamed the deaths on Stumpfegger because he was a convenient target, having disappeared (and died, it was later learned) the following day. Moreover, as O'Donnell recorded, Stumpfegger may have been too intoxicated at the time of the deaths to have played a reliable role. (James O'Donnell: The Bunker (De Capo Press, 1978) ISBN 0-306-80958-3)

~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So, I am right. Innocent until proven guilty. --190.50.87.202 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't. Magda Goebbels and Joseph Goebbels weren't innocent. There is only a tiny diffrence if Magda crushed the capsules or if Ludwig Stumpfegger did it. If Ludwig crushed the capsules he did it solely on the express request of Magda and Joseph Goebbels. The parents had drugged the children solely to kill them later. All three of them are guilty of conspiracy to murder which they fulfilled. In this particular case, weighing all testimonies, there is no reasonable doubt at all. I suppose that it could be "possible" that Magda knew absolutly nothing. However this would require the false testimony of all witnesses, throughout their entire lives. Ergo: not bloody likely (or reasonable). Flamarande (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While she may not technically have carried out the specific act that actually killed them (administering the cyanide), she does circumstantially appear to have been a willing and active participant in the overall process, unless there are any accounts to the contrary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the Presumption of innocence is in most cases an ideal, and not a truth. There are things such as bail (and, well, jail) because we do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" to the letter. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We try, though, and this discussion doesn't mean "we" didn't in this case. Your quibble, I believe, is with the word "proven". In the US, and probably the UK, "proven" is synonymous in a court with "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", not "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt". The Goebbels' role here has, or so I read, been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, hence, in a court of law, "proven". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, "proven beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for subjecting someone to the penalties provided by law. It is not necessarily the appropriate standard for any other context. (As Amory points out, even in law it doesn't necessarily apply in all contexts.) --Anon, 20:44 UTC, October 5, 2009.

(edit conflict) I'm referring to the period before the court case, before we get into the usage of the word "proven" or how it ties to reasonable doubt. Rather, I mean to refer to the moment of arrest (or in some cases suspicion of a crime) leading up until the court case. Someone charged with a triple homicide is not "presumed innocent" - rather, they are locked up tightly and will most likely be denied bail. It's a nice phrase, and one we should all aspire to, but it's not a reality in a society where criminals exist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Traudl Jung Until the Final Hour and Erna Flegel [2] seem to say that the parents were responsible for the childrens deaths.83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Helmut Kunz (see www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/goebbels.html ) "According to Kunz's testimony, he gave the children morphine injections but it was Magda Goebbels and Stumpfegger, Hitler's personal doctor, who then administered the cyanide." 83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also investigate the testimony of Rochus Misch.83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is the list in question, in which case Magda Goebbels is there by the same logic that includes Peter the Great of Russia, who had his son tortured to death and even allegedly participated in some of the torture sessions. We don't know that he struck the fatal blow, but he do know that he sanctioned it. Karenjc 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Truman didn't kill any Japanese, but he definitely sanctioned it. Since we're talking about Goebbels, I figured Godwin's Law was unnecessary. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Truman was commander-in-chief, and I'm sure he would gladly own up to killing a lot of Japanese - as part of the price they paid for making war upon us. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(There is no presumption of innocence in writing history. There is presumption of innocence when being convicted in a court of law. There is a difference. The context of an accusation does matter, as do the potential consequences to the accused.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians have disagreed on the death of Alexis the Tsarevich; not everyone believes that Peter ordered or desired that the torture go as far as it did. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

World Bank loans.

Not really sure where to put this but: What happens to some African (or any other but Africa comes to mind mostly when I think of big loans) when they default on a loan to the IMF or World Bank or some other banking.66.133.196.152 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The IMF or World Bank will refuse to lend them any more money (they also lose voting rights). That's pretty much all you can do with loans to sovereign entities. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "lose voting rights"? 66.133.196.152 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The IMF is a member run organisation, with countries as the members - they make the big decisions by voting (with votes weighted by quotas. A country that is behind in payments can have its voting rights withdrawn. See IMF#Membership_qualifications. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's likely that other lenders will also be very reluctant to lend money. Lenders will have considerable leeway in imposing conditions required in order to restart lending - presumably alongside some debt relief. The article on developing countries' debt may be of interest here. In the cases where this is due to an inability to make the repayments (rather than a refusal to pay), our article on national bankruptcy - in need of work - provides some details. Warofdreams talk 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys thats what I was wondering about. Must suck if your country declares bankruptcy :) 66.133.196.152 (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It has to already suck for that to happen, really. Countries only default on their debt as a last resort, so everything has to have gone wrong already to get to that point. --Tango (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hague Convention of 1907 article II allows countries to use armed force against a debtor countries if they don't comply with the terms of compulsory arbitration, or otherwise refused to take part in such arbitration. Specifically:

This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor State refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, prevents any compromis from being agreed on, or, after the arbitration, fails to submit to the award.

[3] mentions that arbitration is usually somewhat reasonable in what it expects from debtor countries. I'm not sure if this area of international law has changed much. If it has it's likely more friendly to debtor countries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Countries don't usually default on debt by choice - if the money isn't there, there is no point sending soldiers to go and get it. They could confiscate assets, but usually the main asset of a sovereign state is the power to tax, which you can only confiscate by actually occupying the country - that's no usually worth it, the economic and diplomatic costs would be prohibitive. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Some countries in dire economic situations have a fair amount of natural resources which they are unable to effectively exploit because of internal problems. While I agree it's unlikely in this modern era, as the article I linked to says, the fact that this became a part of international law suggests it was a concern. Also it really depend on the reason the country defaulted. If they have a fanatical leader who has no desire to engage with the outside world, then other countries could use their refusal to abide by international law in servicing their debts as an excuse for an invasion. As the article mentions, there are various issues which may enable a country to get out of a substantial portion of their debt (and these in themselves may discourage debtor countries from going down that route). But this also presumes the country is willing to take part in the arbitration. If they refuse then it doesn't matter. Or even if the leader is not so fanatical but still doesn't comply with their requirements some debtor country could use it as an excuse for an invasion which serves their own purposes. Again I think it's rather unlikely and is unlikely to be seen as a major risk to countries for not servicing their debt (as the article I linked to mentioned) but (presuming the conventions haven't changed significantly) remains a possibility depending on the precise circumstances and countries involved. P.S. Perhaps part of the problem is your assumption countries will only ever refuse to pay if things really suck. While this may be the case for all defaultions of recent times and there are good reasons why countries prefer not to default, it clearly doesn't have to be. Countries can simply refuse to pay and refuse to talk about it. You can make things very nasty for them, but they may not care. In such circumstances I strongly suspect many countries will at least use the threat of war as a negotiating tactic and may even give it some consideration. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays there may be more hope for poor countries trying to escape their odious debt to the developed countries and the "international loan-sharking institutions" - the World Bank and the IMF (phrase from Jonathan Kwitny's old book Endless Enemies). But in their heyday, practically nobody could or did. Nations that tried were faced with organized economic warfare from the west, led by the USA, and they almost always were brought to heel and signed on to Structural Adjustment Programs, in the full knowledge that they were intended to, would and did wreck the debtor nation's economic health and enrich lenders in the short run. The current financial crisis has led to the first repayment plans based on the debtors' ability to repay since the 1920s. "No doubt the post-Soviet countries are watching, along with Latin American, African and other sovereign debtors whose growth has been stunted by the predatory austerity programs that IMF, World Bank and EU neoliberals imposed in recent decades. The post-Bretton Woods era is over. We should all celebrate."[4]

Constitution convention

Does anyone know what contributions Dobbs STrong made too it????? Also, Can anyone tell me anything about him???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

About 15 years ago, I read all of James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, and that name doesn't ring a bell. Nor is it among the delegates listed at Wikipedia's article about the Philadelphia Convention. However Gov. Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina did attend the Convention and sign the proposed Constitution. Is this the convention you're asking about, or another constitutional convention (perhaps a state constitutional convention, or one of the state conventions called to ratify the 1787 U.S. Constitution)? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

YEs this is the correct one! I've been searching for hours and have come up empty handed, so i think i will check in on this richard dobbs fellow! Thank you very much!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked the index in my printed copy of Madison's notes, and there are several references to Spaight's contributions on different topics. So I suggest that you pull up the Convention debate texts from one of the links at Wikipedia's articles on the Philadelphia Convention or on Madison's notes (see above), and run a search for Spaight's name. Or look up a printed copy at a local library. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The first person that came to my mind when you said "Dobbs Strong" is Caleb Strong, who attended the Constitutional Convention and made important contributions (supporting the Connecticut Compromise and more than one term for the executive), though you won't learn that from the brief Wikipedia article on him. But maybe that's the guy you were looking for. —Kevin Myers 12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)