July 18

Let us say that an unmarried man (Dad Dixon) and woman (Mom Morton) have a child (Tyke). Legally speaking, when they name the child, do they have the option of naming him either Tyke Dixon (after the Dad) or Tyke Morton (after the Mom)? In other words, legally, can they arbitrarily select whichever last name they want for the child? Also, if that is indeed the case, can they arbitrarily select some other last name (neither Dixon nor Morton, in this example)? For example, they want to legally name the child Tyke Smith or Tyke Jones ... can they do so? I am referring to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not finding anything obvious either here or in Google, but I would think the specific rules would be defined by the individual states, just as are the rules for marriage and divorce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be up to the state in question. And I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to choose from the mother or father's last names. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Married and maiden names#Children says that "in the United States, some states or areas have laws that restrict what surname a child may have. In the District of Columbia, children born to married parents must be given the father's surname alone. Tennessee allows a child to be given a surname that does not include that of the father, but only upon 'the concurrent submission of a sworn application to that effect signed by both parents.'" This thread indicates that in Mississippi out-of-wedlock children can be given either the father's surname, the mother's surname or a new surname entirely. Gabbe (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly anecdotal OR here, but I know of at least one family where the children have totally different names than either the father or the mother. It's a combination of the two — not hyphenated, but taking one syllable from one name and the second syllable from the other, e.g., (not using the real names), Baker + Winfield = Bakefield for the boys, and Winker for the girls. — Michael J 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know one family that combined the surnames to create a new surname for their kids, also. West Coast USA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're making up a new name, why make it different for the boys and girls? You only give boys and girls different names when both parents want to pass on their name to some of the kids. If everyone is getting a new name, why not just let the whole family have the same name? 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the input. Much appreciated! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I was summoned to jury duty a couple of days ago. The accused was charged with reckless driving and the plantiff was the state; the "witness" was a policeman. In the end, I was not selected, probably because I answered positively during a question if anyone related to me went to law school. However, there was one question the judge asked that was confusing. He asked something along the lines of if the fact the accused was charged was an indication of his guilt. One woman raised her hand; the judge sternly said that there has not been any evidence presented and thus guilt could not be assumed. Why did the judge ask that question if the answer was obvious? Was it a standard part of the voir dire "unbiased, fair and impartial" test? I don't think the woman was selected to sit on the trial, but could anything negative have happened to her after that because of her answer? -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pretty standard question to me. Some people believe that indictment, or even arrest, implies guilt, and they shouldn't sit on juries. I assume she was dismissed for cause. What "negative" thing could possibly happen? It's not against the law to have mistaken ideas about justice. PhGustaf (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would be a standard question to any juror. And anyone stupid enough (or smart enough) to say "Yes" would be sent home. The worst thing that might happen, short of having been found to have been bribed, would be ridicule from family and friends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a standard question. Just because the police arrest you and suspect you of a crime ... does not mean that you committed the crime. The State (prosecution) still bears the burden to affirmatively prove that you committed the crime. That is what the judge was getting at. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Was she allowed to serve on the jury? I'd be shocked if they let someone that stupid on... --mboverload@ 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stated: "I don't think the woman was selected to sit on the trial." (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Gah, how did I miss that. Thanks. --mboverload@ 01:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some (non-US) jurisdiction, indictment does carry with it a fairly strong presumption of guilt, if only informally. Specifically, I'm thinking about Japan, and this recent news event relating to the Ashikaga murder case. There are numerous new articles about Toshikazu Sugaya's release, including this one: [1] Buddy431 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human nature being what it is, it's not unreasonable to assume (or hope) that the cops and the prosecutors got it right. Many cases are open-and-shut. But some are not, and they do get it wrong sometimes. A good juror has to have the mindset that, regardless of what he might think ahead of time, the only evidence that matters is what's presented in the courtroom, and that the state has to prove its case there. (This, frankly, is why O.J. walked.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet he was convicted (admittedly by a different jury) of a closely related civil charge stemming from the same event. They got him in the end, appeareances of abandonment of double jeopardy notwithstanding. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a copy of Charlie Chaplin's long-lost 1914 film A Thief Catcher has been found, assuming nobody renewed the copyright (or whatever), who owns the thing? The lucky finder or the heirs of the rightful owner in 1914? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The finder would own the physical copy of the film (assuming it was legitimately acquired), but the copyrights of the contents of the film have almost certainly expired in the U.S. AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All pre-1923 copyright are expired in the U.S. There is no possibility of it being renewed. [2] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Queen Elizabeth II a monarchist, or is she a supporter of republicanism in the United Kingdom?--Alphador (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the very fact that she has not abdicated or abolished the monarchy (or, indeed, instructed her government to abolish the monarchy) indicates that she is, in deed, a monarchist? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, her temperament seems to be that she would do her assigned duty as well as she can whether she was personally in favor of monarchism or republicanism... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation alert.... What will be interesting is whether a large number of people in places like Australia actively resist the succession of Charles. If that happens, it's hard to see anything other than the start of the system gradually unravelling - republicanism in other areas of the monarch's realms eventually leading to changes in the UK. Ever optimistic... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought that would be the case - she's been Queen of quite a few places which are now republics - Pakistan, Fiji, numerous places in Africa, - and that doesn't seem to have unravelled her other 16 realms. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but that happened mainly for different reasons - primarily, the move away from colonialism and decline of the Empire. If it happens in places like Australia or Canada, the impact on opinion in the UK is likely to be greater because of the historic connections and similarities - particularly if it coincides with the growth of nationalism (which will inevitably be linked, to some extent, with republicanism) within the UK. IMHO! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of "ifs and ands[3]" in that lot; YES and NO are the answers to the original question; you could qualify it by saying that the Queen is a Constitutional Monarchist, at least in public. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Ghmyrtle. Changes in Canada or Australia would hearten a small number of committed republicans in the UK, but most Brits can't really get their head round the idea that she is queen of Canada or Australia, and would not see that it had any bearing on her status here where she is "really" the queen. --ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that there's a fair chance it would set a process rolling. We must wait and see...! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionally the monarch does not express political views, and this is a political issue. There is no way to tell, and it's unlikely that she'd declare a position.

ALR (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Queen doesn't comment publicly on such matters. It is possible she's expressed views on the matter privately and someone has mentioned it in their memoirs or similar, but I'm not aware of it. --Tango (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Queen either personally abolishing the monarchy or instructing her government to do so - sorry, Tammy, but that is an extraordinarily uneducated view of her powers. It's not like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, or the King in the Wizard of Id, where the king/queen's word is law and it's off to the gallows for anyone who disobeys. The Queen is pretty much at the bottom of the pile when it comes to having any real say about the law, or what system of government might obtain. It's a crude way of putting it, but it's far closer to the truth to say that her Prime Ministers tell her what to do, than she tells them what to do. In any event, there's not just one monarchy to be abolished, but 16. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I was making a point that it's a pretty daft question given the circumstances. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given who she assumes the next King is going to be, she might have some second thoughts about the Monarchy. However, in general, this is like asking whether the Pope is Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

assume that firms in a short run are earning above normal profits. explain what will happen to this profits in the long run for a market having perfect competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.146.88 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're learning a bunch of bullshit you know. What will happen is that the firm is careful to keep it a very good secret that they are earning above-average profits, and they will continue to do so for a hundred years. Or they will start buying out other firms and getting a nice monopoly in. Or they will use the profits to turn into something other than a commodity, and make something that they do have a monopoly on, whether it be a patented design or just their own branding and image. Either way, they will hold on to that profit. But don't tell your teacher: there's a reason he's working for $45,000 a year after all this time, and it ain't cuz' he's talented at economics. 92.230.233.165 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He quite clearly said "in perfect competition", duh. More suppliers will enter the market, incentivised by the supernormal profits. This will increase the supply for the good that the firm is selling, lowering the price until the firms are just earning normal profits.––Alphador (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "on paper"...specifically, in the paper written by the guy whose wife just left him, because he's a miserable failure. In actual fact, more suppliers will not enter the market, incentivized by the supernormal profits. That's just a fact. As to why they don't, there are at least three major reasons. 1) secrecy. Anyone doing their jobs will not let it be known that they are receiving a windfall. 2) business tactics. There are a number of strategies used to keep the barrier to entry impossibly high. And 3) manipulation of demand. Companies, in point of fact, use a great deal of their profits to convince customers that there is something special about their brand. The moment that happens, you are no longer a commodity, fungible with all the other companies that would sell it. But please, don't listen to me or a guy like Bill Gates. What do we know? Listen to your economics professor in a bad suit, who is probably barely making mortgage payments and has no better relationship with business than teaching a ridiculous version of it that never had applicability. As the saying goes, those who can, do... 92.230.233.165 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article perfect competition before you rant, please. The OP asked what would happen in PERFECT COMPETITION. Perfect competition is by definition a market system with no barriers to entry, no secrecy (perfect information) and no brand loyalty.––220.253.104.251 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

92, your ranting is inappropriate here. So is comparing yourself to Bill Gates, which would be an argument from authority, if anyone were to lend it any credulity. We're here to answer questions with references, not to complain about hypothetical economics professors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THat article says that it doesn't exist, but it says "it's useful" all the same. It is useful in one sense: when the government steals from the people to give Universities grants, the Universities are able to make a case for getting some money for economics grants. So, "perfect competition" is a useful construct, as it empowers the professors who use this idea to steal from people without having to buy a gun. The article admits it never exists, so I don't see why we need to go any farther. Obviously the reason we are asking for what will happen in the long term given conditions that cannot exist is to enable the stealing of taxpayers' money. That is the single, solitary reason for the existence of this question. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is bizarre. The reason that questions about idealized situations are really useful is that they make it much easier to understand real situations. Understand the idealized basics, then add layers of complexity. Following your logic, people should never trouble to learn formulas like "F=ma" when trying to calculate the amount of energy it takes to keep a car going, because the real-world situations you're trying to figure out include wind resistance, photonic pressure, gravitational pull from the moon, and lots of other complex variables. People do learn better one step at a time, you know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attend the lectures. Read the books. Do your own homework. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.224.6 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Columbia" is "America", so maybe not. Have you checked Google to see if this subject is discussed anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't residents of Puerto Rico or Washington DC allowed to vote for the Congress of the United States? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because neither of them are states. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia voting rights is our whole article on the DC side of 84's question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the top of this page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Unless anybody knows a reliable source that has discussed the question, it does not belong here. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from our article: District of Columbia statehood movement - "New Columbia is the name of the proposed U.S. state that would be created by the admission of Washington, D.C. into the United States as the 51st state according to legislation offered starting in the 98th Congress in 1983 and routinely re-introduced in succeeding Congresses." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if one city were allowed to become a state, and get two senators, it would only be fair if every city larger than Washington DC also became a state, adding 26 other new states, to avoid a "rotten borough" situation where the DC folks had far more power in the senate those living in other parts of the country. A more equitable solution would be to return it to the state of Maryland, from which its land was originally taken, as "DC County, Maryland." See District of Columbia retrocession. There is already a Washington County, Maryland. But I understand Maryland does not want it to be part of their state, and the Washington DC residents do not want to be part of Maryland. Are there any poll numbers bearing on this issue? DC originally was much larger and contained "Alexandria County, DC," in Virginia, but that half of DC was returned to Virginia, and its residents got to vote for Senators, Representatives, and Presidents, as part of Virginia. Edison (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was Arlington County. Alexandria is an independent city, not a county. Acroterion _(talk) 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Arlington County, Virginia, it was originally called Alexandria County. It was returned to Virginia in 1846, for reasons described in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying DC's 599,657 is a bigger problem then Wyoming's 544,270? Isn't the inequality part and parcel of the US Senate system? On a related note, does anyone have any info on state by state support of DC statehood? I can't help wondering if California's 36,961,664 are actually more supportive then Wyoming's 544,270. Also is there actually any other area currently part of a US state which is already in some way a distinct entity and is the size of DC or larger where a majority of the population want independent statehood? Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any places with majority support (or else we would have heard of it already), but there are many proposals at List of U.S. state partition proposals. 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the earliest reference to a man pleasing two women at the same time sexually? (I mean at the exact same moment, the exact phrasing, pleasing them or them pleasing him isn't so important, I just mean 2 women and 1 man having sex together). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.233.165 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will no doubt have been common in Ancient Greece - as the artcile Orgy details. I'm sure it went on well before that but at least as early as Ancient Greece for referenceable evidence. ny156uk (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of such a reference might depend on whether you require it to be written, or would accept pictorial depictions such as on a vase. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want have the cities of Bottrop and Gelsenkirchen to be included in the district of Recklinghausen, because of the Residenzpflicht, and the fact that you have to travel through at least one of these cities (or possibly Essen) to get from Gladbeck to the rest of the district. --84.61.131.18 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a link to a page, so it is hard to know what you are talking about. But it seems to me that your issue is a question of fact, which should be settled by reference to WP:reliable sources which do or do not say that the cities are in the district. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at Recklinghausen (district) which describes Bottrop, Gelsenkirchen and three other cities as "district-free", which I take to mean that they are not in districts at all. However, this statement is unreferenced and neither of the cities' articles mentions their status.

Either way, this is a question of fact. Either Bottrop and Gelsenkirchen are administratively within districts, in which case their articles should say so, and the region article should be altered; or they are not in districts, in which case the statement in Recklinghausen (district) is correct and should be supported by a reference.

In any case, it seems to me that further discussion of this question should be on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, nearly all larger cities are kreisfrei, (district free), even if they are within a district of the same name. According to the German Wikipedia (not a RS, but I trust it for that), Bottrop is kreisfrei, as is Gelsenkirchen. Districts are merely administrative units, they can have many shapes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the city of Recklinghausen district-free, even if Bottrop is a district-free city with fewer residents than Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical reasons. The current Kreise were determined in 1975. At that time, Bottrop had nearly 200000 inhabitants. However, the city of Gladbeck, which had been merged with Bottrop, successfully sued against this administrative act, so Gladbeck was unmerged, dropping Bottrop to 114000. Apparently nobody has bothered or dared to touch things again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Residenzpflicht? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Residenzpflicht means that certain professions (medical doctors, lawyers, clerics, public servants et al) are required to live in / close to the location where they practise / work (similar provisions apply to asylum seekers during the relevant legal proceedings). I don´t know which of the two meanings is applicable to your question above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you understand German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residenzpflicht_(Asylverfahrensgesetz). Briefly, Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers means that any foreign person applying for asylum in Germany is required to stay in a specific district / Landkreis. Residenzpflicht is a legal construct particular to Germany and does not exist in any other country of the EU. Not surprisingly, is is highly controversial (not only amongst refugees) and there seem to be two cases which have been brought to the European Court of Human Rights for adjudication by affected refugees. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which consequences has the Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers living in Gladbeck or in Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are asylum seekers living in Gladbeck allowed to go through Gelsenkirchen, if they want to go to Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I've joined a debate club this summer and on Monday we'll be debating for and against vegetarianism, and I'm in the against camp. So far I've got it's more difficult to have a balanced diet, vegetables have less energy, and supplements/replacements (such as calcium/soy milk if you don't drink milk) are more expensive. I can't think of any good philosophical arguments though... the only one I have is claiming that plant life is worth no less than animal life but that's not particularly strong. Can someone help me out with some ideas? PS: Id much rather sthe ideas be non-religious in nature. Thanks. 76.229.182.212 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can think of one anecdote. Rita Rudner said that when she moved, she hired some vegetarian movers, and she and her husband had to help them, "because they were too weak to lift anything." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also bring up the old argument that Hitler was a vegetarian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd struggle to find a philosophical argument against vegetarianism. Working on the basis that humans are naturally omnivorous then a vegetarian diet excludes things. You're looking for an argument that would exclude other things.

I would recommend that you clarify your position, are you including in your definition of vegetarian also those who eat a lacto-ovo vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian diet? Each of those changes the arguments.

The majority of vegetarians are in practice lacto-ovo, they drink milk and eat eggs. Your argument about a balanced diet is weak, it's perfectly easy to consume an adequately supported diet on that basis.

There are lots of very simple arguments for a vegetarian diet, but you could talk about choice. I'm making an assumption that you're not talking about it on an individual but doctrinal basis?

ALR (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point in raising the question "Just what kind of vegetarian are we talking about?" Their usual arguments are that it's healthier. I know someone who is a total vegan - won't even consume eggs or milk. However, he's a cigarette smoker. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There really aren't any arguments against vegetarianism. You can easily have a perfectly balanced vegetarian diet (assuming you allow eggs and milk, which most vegetarians do - even if you don't, you can have a balanced diet, but it's not very easy), such a diet has a much lower energy cost (if you get the energy from plants by eating animals that have eaten the plants, a lot of energy is wasted by being used by the animal) and there are no animal cruelty concerns. I think your only chance in the debate is to point out that the "natural" state for humans is to eat an omnivorous diet and therefore the burden of proof is on the vegetarians to prove their way is better. You can then just counter all the points made by the vegetarians, rather than trying to make any points yourself. If you can counter every point they make, then you win by default. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot the one good argument against vegetarianism: meat tastes nice. That means the downsides of eating meat have to be enough to outweigh that pleasure people get from eating it. (Of course, there is plenty of nice tasting vegetarian food, but there is nothing stopping people eating both.) --Tango (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Tango said. Our Vegetarian nutrition article does list a number of "risks" of various vitamin deficiencies among vegetarians, so another argument could be "it's a pain in the ass to monitor everything you eat, which vegetarians practically have to do to make sure they aren't deficient in one of these crucial vitamins". An opponent in the debate could of course crush you if one of the vitamins you mention isn't supplied by meat, so be careful with that one. I would use "Hitler was a vegetarian" for sure in a debate society in order to get a laugh. I think the general idea that "humans evolved to eat meat, so we're supposed to eat meat" is a bit lame (it is faith-based, in a way) but also hard to refute, sort of. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of those strike me as extremely weak arguments, every one of them. One should, in principle, always argue against the strongest objection—it makes your side all the more convincing, and shows you aren't a straw-manning twit. Saying that vegetarianism requires people to have a varied diet is really not much of an argument. The "humans evolved this way" is an obvious naturalistic fallacy. If I were trying to do a good debate, I'd steer clear of such things, because that's exactly what the opposing side is going to be prepared to clobber you with, and they will, if they have done their work, be exceptionally able to do that (because these are largely fallacious arguments). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with you; they're quite weak arguments. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are weak arguments. As I said, there aren't really any arguments against vegetarianism (other than meat tasting nice), so if we need to come up with some arguments they will be, by necessity, very weak. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to the clever debater to set the terms of the argument. If it were me (as I've gone on for quite too long below), I would concentrate on framing my side of things in a way that defuses the strongest arguments of the opponents. If you end up agreeing with them on 90% of things, it comes down to that last 10% for the real pitch. Saying up front that nobody in their right mind would argue that one should eat all meat, or that one should eat as much red meat as people do, defuses a huge amount. If your side of thing is that for moderation — hey, why be diet extremists? — you make the other side look like the ones with the higher burden of proof. Make the argument not about carnivores vs. vegetarians, but balanced omnivores vs. people who want to draw extremely sharp lines around what can and can't be eaten. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the suggestion I made above - you need to force the burden of proof onto the other side in order to avoid having to make any arguments yourself, since they will be very weak. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ate a vegetarian diet for most of my childhood and we never worried about individual vitamins. If you read the article you linked, pretty much all the sections about individual nutrients say that most studies haven't found there to be any problem at all. That argument won't get you anywhere (except with reference to vegans - if we're arguing against vegan diets then we have a much easier job). --Tango (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key to any good diet is to just eat a lot of different things. Being a vegetarian is not eating all lettuce, just as being an omnivore is not eating all hot dogs. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I would do, personally. I'd skip all of those goofy arguments about nutrition and Hitler and supplements. They are nibbling if not completely wrong, or enhance values (like not having a varied diet, like people not valuing what they put in them for its nutritional value) that a clever opponent will be quite ready to shoot down. Your opponents will, if they are clever, probably also point out that excessive focus on meat consumption has completely warped American attitudes and habits regarding food to a disturbing and disgusting degree. You will probably not be able to win that particular argument.

Instead, I would say, straight up, that you are not arguing for the status quo at all. That meat consumption could be part of a varied diet and that the larger question of whether humans should eat meat should be distinctly separated from questions about factory farming, the beef economy, and so on. You say up front that eating large amounts of red meat has been shown to be decidedly unhealthy, but being a meat eater doesn't imply that you eat cheeseburgers for every meal, obviously. You diffuse the opponent by posing yourself as the moderate, non-straw man argument.

Then you perhaps look at what the philosophy is that underlies vegetarianism. Do we really consider animals to have the same moral and ethical status as human beings? The primary philosopher of vegetarianism/veganism is Peter Singer. I would introduce who he is, how important he is considered (it is easy to find a few quotes to that effect), and how basically, nobody thinks that there is a strong logical argument against his conclusions. But what are these conclusions? Singer basically believes that there is no reason to consider human and animal lives to be morally or ethically different—killing a cow is as morally problematic as killing another human being, in Singer's eyes. Sounds logical, if you don't believe in souls or separate creation or "speciesism". But what are the implications of that? Singer does a great job of running through all of the ways which philosophy (which he believes in) obligates us ethically and morally to totally change the way our society is run, changes our relationship with animals (can we have pets?), changes the entire ethical calculus of our culture. For most people it is a disturbing world, very unsettling, not the world they want to live in. Articulating exactly where this attitude leads to would, I think, be sufficiently uncomfortable to most of those in the room. (Singer is not a very fun or enjoyable read in this respect.) I think then asking if that is the world we want to live in, if that is the world we should live in, would be a pretty broad and hard to answer assault. Most people will intuitively say, "no, I don't think so." (Whether that is logical or not is a different question.)

The nice part of this is that you are actually arguing the side of the opponent but taking it farther than they will be inclined. You use their own philosophy against them. They won't see it coming and they won't have any way of effectively recourse—except to argue against their own position (e.g. that humans and animal lives are morally equivalent). Well, maybe it would work that way—in my head it does. I think it would be a lot cleverer, anyway, than trying to snipe nutrition facts, and being just completely overwhelmed by opponents who are prepared to shoot those kinds of arguments down. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, when they say "against" vegetarianism, are they arguing it should be outlawed? Something was said about meat tasting nice. Contrariwise, vegetables often do not taste nice. How often has a parent had to say to a child, "Finish your steak or you won't get any vegetables." Not often, I daresay. There's a problem also with morally equating animals to humans. They're using it to mean that killing an animal is just as immoral as killing a human. Good luck finding any broad sourcing on that. But consider the other side of it - that it implies killing a human is no worse than killing an animal. That's an anti-human philosophy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child I hated eating meat, vegetables I liked. Similarly as an adult. Don't assume that the whole world has the same tastes as yourself. I find it difficult to believe that a child would eat a steak with joy: more likely the reverse is true. 92.28.240.114 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetables do taste nice. A lot of people just don't cook them right (usually massively overcooking them). If you prepare your vegetables correctly, they can be delicious. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with a little butter on the corn and a little bacon on the green beans. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all you have is vegetables, you probably learn to like them. I'm reminded of a Garfield where he's eating a house plant and thinking, "When you're starving, anything tastes good." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that what most people imagine to be "vegetarian food" is quite laughable. Here is vegetarian food: imagine a huge turkey sandwich, with all of the fixings, but minus the turkey. Still pretty dang good. Doesn't require you to eat a raw turnip or anything. I speak as someone who is maybe 80% vegetarian most of the time, in practice. It doesn't have to be some big extreme, "only eat beans" kind of thing. It's regular food, just minus unnecessary meat or extreme focus on red meat (which is just too unhealthy to justify being a major part of one's diet). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally a vegetarian and often eat meat, but when I'm eating with my mother, who is vegetarian, I eat vegetarian food and thoroughly enjoy it. I'm not enjoying it because it's all I have; I'm enjoying it because it tastes nice. Tonight, I had a spicy bean-burger, mashed potato (with milk, so not acceptable to a vegan), carrots and cauliflower. It was very simple and easy to cook and very nice (although, had I made it, I would have replaced the cauliflower with broccoli, which I prefer - it has more flavour). That meal was very similar to meals eaten by omnivores all the time ("meat and two (well, three) veg"), just with the meat (a pork chop, say) replaced by a bean-burger. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the argument against vegetarianism is about people: people have meats in their national dishes, by not eating meat, you deny acknowledging this heritage. Hitler was a vegetarian. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr. 98 already implied, that line of argument will probably not help you win the debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually using that argument could backfire, as supposedly the reason Hitler switched to a vegetarian diet was that meat was making him sick. Oops. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO your best bet is to make a defence of mixed farming, where the stock rearing and cultivation of crops are planned to harmonise with each other. Such methods were common throughout the world until the advent of agribusiness. Consumption of moderate amounts of free-range meat is of great benefit to farmers who aim to minimise inputs. They were the basis of the American family farm and are still common in much of Europe, Asia and Africa. If we had no animal rearing then we would be completely dependent on fertilisers derived from fossil fuels. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the debate must be against vegetarianism itself, the following won't work; but if you can frame the debate such that you're opposing government-mandated vegetarianism, or even government-provided economic incentives to promote vegetarianism, then I think you could create a meaty (HA HA) argument, centered on the unlikelihood that humans, en masse, can be converted, because we have evolved to love, inter alia, bacon. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question why Insects and pests are not given the same status as animals. Ask whether they feel hypocritical chewing down on their tomato and onion salad knowing that the crops have been farmed using techniques that wipe out billions of insects every year. Ask how it can be less immoral to kill things such as Green Fly than, say, a sheep. Is size the factor? I have to note that I don't really buy the "it's immoral" line because culturally, socially meat eating is the dominant choice of human kind, and morality is a human construct - not a universal - so it suggests that the consensus is firmly in the camp that eating meat is not immoral. ny156uk (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nutrition argument is certainly not that weak - getting enough iron out of a vegetarian diet is not trivial, especially for women. But another argument is the cultural aspect. Food is something very much part of our culture. No more Bacon and Eggs, Goulash, Spaghetti bolognese, Prosciutto di Parma, Filet mignon, Lasagna, Salami, Saltimbocca, Chilli con carne, Pot-au-feu, Coq au Vin, thanksgiving turkey, Hamburgers, Chicken Tikka, Doner Kebab, Bratwurst or Shashlik. Isn't that a loss comparable to burning all Baroque music? Or all impressionist paintings? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that assertion about iron? Vegetarianism#Iron says it isn't a significant problem. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, citation needed. And really, the culture argument would only apply if you were banning it for everyone, and in any case, food culture morphs over time. A lot of "historic" dishes are a hundred years old at best, maybe two. And just because something is "part of culture" doesn't make it a good thing. Ritualized female circumcision is certainly "part of a culture," as are a lot of other barbaric practices. I think it is a weak argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My references are [1], and [2], so I get your point. But our article is, at best, ambivalent. Sure, someone in a modern western society with access to any foodstuff grown on this planet via a trip to the local supermarket will be able to get enough iron. But that represents only a small part of the worlds population. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the culture argument is weak. You don't need to ban everyone from eating meat for it to apply. The opposing team is saying that people shouldn't eat meat - if they are right then this would directly impact our culture. Female circumcision is clearly a violation of human rights while eating meat is a violation of animal rights, which violation this debate is all about. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful with 'dominant choice of human kind' sort of thing. Arguably at various points in time, allowing ownership of slaves, discrimination based on sex including perhaps girls or wifes being consider property, racism including killing people for being the wrong race, whipping children for wrong doings, the death penalty, punishing or even killing people for homosexuality, marriages and sex at 12 years old or younger, punishing or even klling people for being the wrong religion, doing whatever you want and damn the consequences to nature and everyone else indirectly affected etc were the dominant choice of human kind yet some of these have clearly changed. Others (like the death penalty) are probably still in the okay camp. So even if consensus is currently firmly in the camp that eating meat is immoral, consensus does change and for many people there would be at least one area of previous consensus that they would agree was wrong. Consensus can change as they say. Clearly this doesn't mean that the consensus is wrong or that eating meat is definitely immoral but the idea that eating meat is immoral needs to be discussed on merits, the current consensus is IMHO not particularly useful in such a discussion since the people who agree with it will say it's right, the people who don't will say it's wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can include arguments from a biological perspective - for example how human teeth match not only animals that eat vegetables (with our molars), but also animals that eat mean (with our canines). I suspect that there are other biological arguments, to do with the human digestive system and the flora in it. I know that vegetarians also use biological arguments, but the omnivores have their arguments too. It is likely true that humans (in the developed world) eat far more meat than they need to, for the most part, but that's not an argument for stopping eating it altogether, only for reducing the amount of meat in the average diet. Steewi (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good zinger: If we aren't supposed to eat animals why are they made of meat? --mboverload@ 01:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An strong argument which hasn't been discussed is the idea that vegetarianism potentially kills more animals than meat eating does. That is, if you consider all animals morally equal which many vegetarians do. The reason is that farming, esp. the production of grain, kills a lot of animals: rodents and insects mostly. Grass-fed beef kills much less when you consider that a single cow can feed many people. See http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm . Jonathan Safran Foer in Eating Animals concedes that beef causes less death and importantly less cruelty than some farming because the slaughter of a cow can be carefully controlled to minimize pain, but the millions of mice torn apart by tillers and tractors aren't so lucky. —D. Monack ^talk 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I'd try this approach: Either present animal welfare laws in the meat industry are adequate, or they're inadequate. If they're inadequate – that's an argument in favour of tougher animal welfare regulation, not abstaining from meat eating altogether. Arguably, with sufficiently stiff regulations regarding anaesthesia, cage sizes, transportation, and so on it would be possible to kill animals without any suffering involved. That way, palates are satisifed (for those humans that so desire) at no cost to animals. There are of course counter-arguments to this, but even Peter Singer recognised that if we personally knew and trusted a farmer that we knew for a fact reared and killed animals in a fashion that was entirely painless to them – then consuming their meat would not be unethical. Singer's own response was that this scenario would be unlikely, rare and unavailable to most meat-eaters. See for example Practical Ethics, page 64, where he kind of dodges the issue of whether there is such a thing as "ethical meat-eating". Gabbe (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an argument against vegetarianism: People don’t eat cows in India, and as a result they wander around and disrupt traffic. If there is no reason to keep all those animals currently used for food, the alternatives are to kill them – not exactly at the heart of the vegology – or turn ‘em loose. Would the resulting traffic jams and increased pollution be worse for the environment than just maintaining the status quo? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an exceptionally uncompelling argument. Just because you don't eat cows doesn't mean you should let them wander around aimlessly. Just because the Indians choose to do it one way (for religious reasons) doesn't mean anyone else would copy them. The goal here is to come up with good arguments, not stupid ones. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If most people were vegetarians, there would be no need to raise animals for food, so we wouldn't have the same diversity of meat-producing animals/numbers of animals that we have now. The landscape is dictated by its use and would look very different and less aesthetically pleasing (in the UK anyway) if it were all laid down to crops instead. Without cows and sheep grazing, arable farming would have no need for hedgerows, leading to less biodiversity. But not everywhere is suitable for crop growing. What about the poorer soils that are only suitable for animal grazing? Do they just return to scrub? On an individual basis, you might argue that vegetarians can be difficult to cater for by non-vegetarians when they come around for dinner. :-)

Organic farming would be a lot harder without animal manure. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are scientific arguments FOR animal proteins and fats, and against overconsumption of wheat, soy, even fruit, etc. which tend to be vegetarian staples. Also for low-carb/high-fat diets, which is hard to do as a vegetarian. wholehealthsource.blogspot.com, westonaprice.org, marksdailyapple.com, high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com, beyondveg.com, homodiet.netfirms.com. The conventional wisdom of the badness of "red meat" and saturated fat is being questioned much more publically. 209.89.177.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW vegetarians LOVE "The China Study" as a source and it has taken a few beatings, including recently, it may get brought up by your opponents. [4] 209.89.177.187 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was a vegetarian. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is an easy side to debate, since you can refute or deflect any of the arguments put forward by the vegetarians. For example, they'll discuss bad farming methods (agree with these and call for reform: bad animal husbandry does not mean there is no good animal husbandry: and show how an organic ecosystem needs mixed farming), nutrition (agree that some people eat too much meat but not enough veg, but show that meat in moderation is healthy and offers many nutritional benefits). The "moral" argument of not harming the poor dear animals is nonsense. As mentioned above by many, arable farming and vegetarianism kill animals of all sorts, and destroys habitats. Vegetarians who eat milk or eggs can take no moral highground at all. Cows only produce milk after calving...the calf is taken away, so she can calve again and keep supplying milk. The calf is kept if female (for more babies and milk) and killed (when mature) if male. If we don't kill and eat males, then dairy farming can't happen. Hens lay eggs. To get hens, we need baby chicks born. Half are male, who won't lay. So we eat them. If we aren't prepared to kill most of the males, then we won't be able to keep flocks of hens to give us eggs. (Similar for sheep/wool...basically, we only need a few male animals to become mature and mate with the many females. You can't keep them all.) Also, true animal lovers/conservationists recognise the need for farming. Farmers look after animals because they can make a living from it, not because they're pretty and sweet and such dear little things. If we don't eat them, they won't keep them or breed them. Since domesticated animals can't fend for themselves, and have no natural habitat, they'll die out if not cared for. The conservation of rare breeds, for example, shows this: they started dying out because people stopped farming them...saving them requires a market for their meat...if people eat them, farmers breed them. Leather and wool require farming (therefore death of animals). If our ecosystem and sustainable farming practices needs us to keep animals, and to keep animals means some have to be culled, then it makes sense to eat them, and not waste the resource (ie. meat, skin, fur) they offer us. Just a few starting points...you can also refute pain (animals killed for food can live good lives and experience no pain, if farmed properly) and so on.... Gwinva (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to say that after Blacks managed to rule the South Africa, the growth of this country started to decrease? 83.31.120.41 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean purely economic growth, or do you have a broader definition in mind? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the major factors are to be found in our article Economy of South Africa. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an economist, but it doesn't seem "fair to say" that at all. The GDP went up quite a bit, owing no doubt to vastly increased trading after various anti-apartheid boycotts were removed. In any case, characterizing it as "Black rule" is I think a bit misleading. What you're talking about is formally making the democracy actually open to all citizens rather than a small racial minority who had been systematically concentrating capital and political power. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the economic powerhouse of Europe, West Germany, unified with East Germany to form Germany, its growth decreased.
Sleigh (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's a different scenario. That's a modern, "powerhouse" economy suddenly merging with a falling-apart, formerly socialist state of roughly the same size. One would expect that the economies of the two would roughly equalize as the falling-apart side consumed the resources and infrastructure of the modern side, at least for awhile. One wouldn't necessarily expect the same scenario in the South Africa situation, except for the fact that social services were probably being offered to the formerly oppressed majority that otherwise would have been cut, and that there would be a fair amount of social disruption for quite awhile. The South African "economies" were not separate so much as "rigged". As I understand it, anyway, but I am no expert on economics nor South Africa. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany and West Germany were not "of roughly the same size". At the time of unification, West Germany had around 60 million inhabitants, East Germany had around 16-17 million. 80.163.68.22 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's the inherant misassumption in the OPs statement about black rule in South Africa. Blacks didn't take over the country, they were granted due access to power. They, and whites and South Asians and all other groups living in South Africa have the same legal rights. Also, as a modern democratic republic, no one rules. People are elected to serve in certain roles in the government. People are citizens, not subjects, and the government governs, it does not rule. --Jayron32 03:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The short answer is absolutely not. South Africa was actually in the midst of a prolonged, crippling economic depression in the years leading up to the first multiracial elections in 1994. Since 1994, South Africa did not have a single recession until the 2009 global recession. --M@rēino 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did this girl end up all right? I can't tell from the photo how large the drop was, or if she caught herself on the railing... 84.153.180.220 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is grass sticking up just behind the platform, which suggests the drop is very small (a couple of feet, say). --Tango (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to know more about the location to be really sure. If it was a really steep drop off, that would be bad for a human being, not so much for a plant. She looks pretty caught on the railing to me, anyway—her arm and her leg are wrapped around it. I suspect she very inelegantly pulled herself or was pulled up. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For heavens sake! Look at the heading of the page. It was an example of a set up shot using the camera shutter delay. It was set to look like a spontaneous moment when someone is coming to grief (who doesn't smile at that situation) but it was all under control as can be deduced from the unsurprised look on the girl's face. I guess she is not an actor. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not really what it says. It says she set up the shutter delay, then (below the picture) that she ran to get into the frame and jumped to sit on the fence, and fell over. The other girl doesn't look very composed to me. Anyway, I'm sure the girl was fine, because they probably wouldn't joke about it on the Internet if she killed herself (although, it is the Internet, so maybe...) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]