April 28 Information

what is a "target price", what does it mean? Does it mean "what it will be exactly 12 months from now" or "what it will be exactly one month from now" or "what it really should be now" or what?

Now I have a bizarre question. If all the firms like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, issue a price target of "100" when the stock is trading at 50 now, but a call option with a strike price of 60 for 18 months from now is only priced at 20 (the premium), then does that mean that the "market disagrees with Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan"? Because you can buy at 20, hold for 12 months, and the stock is at 100, meaning you're $40 in the money, i.e. 200% of what you paid, plus there is time value for the next six months? How should I interpret an agreement from all the firms like Sachs and J.P. Morgan and my own analysis for target of 100, and reconcile that with the options market valuing a call option for 60 that expires 18 months from now at just $20 premium??

Is my interpretation that this means the market grossly disagrees with J.P. MOrgan, Goldman Sachs, and my own analysis, correct? (Since otherwise, it would not give someone a 200% ROI, it would price the premium on the option much higher). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.2.135 ( talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Essentially, it's the price an analyst thinks a stock should reach at a certain time. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That's how I would interpret the option price, yes. I would also note that if J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs were so damn sure about that target price, then they, and the clients whose money they manage, would have bought those options (and the stock itself) so much that the price would have risen, such that there was no "gross" disparity between the current price and the eventual target. Note that these firms are not to be trusted with "target prices". The underwriter of any IPO, for example, always claims some fancifully sky-high "target price", which differs a lot from the evaluations of any disinterested financial firms. Also I don't think that these firms often put a date on their "target" prices. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 20:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

which country/province contains a large group of historic cities and also one of World's major rivers passing through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 ( talk) 06:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There are lots of countries that fit this description. Germany, Russia, China, and the U.S. all spring to mind, and the list doesn't stop there. —Angr ( talk) 06:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Depending on what "major river" means, take a look at List of rivers by discharge. So, major rivers with many historic cities? Ganges, Yangtze, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Pearl, Saint Lawrence, Volga, Danube, Indus, Ghaghara, Yamuna, Nile, Yellow, Rhine, Rhone, Po... any of these would satisfy the question. Take your pick. Pfly ( talk) 09:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That GK site has some of the worst defined questions. Googlemeister ( talk) 13:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Do we know which site it is, so we can avoid it? – b_jonas 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

So my case manager assumes that "if you haven't matured enough by 24, then you'll never mature."

I counterpointed him with, "I'm sure some of Edison's colleagues once told him that after 500 tries, if he couldn't make a working lightbulb by now, he will never make one. But he did, 9,500 more tries later."

Even though I'm disqualified from military service just because of current medication, I asked him how much faster anyone in my situation would mature. He said "the military would make or break you." Some wouldn't even be in combat before just the military life compounds mental health issues.

So with that option out, what could be some ways to mature faster? Thanks. -- 129.130.99.8 ( talk) 10:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you're disqualified from military service, maybe you can join some paramilitary organization like the police, fire department, or Boy Scouts. Pais ( talk) 10:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm sure the mental health would disqualify me from the police. Fire Dept. - there may be a little better possibility. Boy scouts - isn't that a now or never for 17 and under? -- 129.130.99.8 ( talk) 11:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm guessing that mention of Boy Scouts means that you're in the USA. (Most of the rest of the world now has just Scouts, including girls at all levels.) But adult leaders are always welcome in Scouting in my country, and training is excellent. I suspect the same is true of America. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

" Paramilitary" wouldn't be the first word that would spring to mind if you saw my Scouts trying to march! Alansplodge ( talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ha ha. Have to agree with that for my mob too. It's definitely not what they're good at! HiLo48 ( talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The IP address is assigned to a location in the U.S., so I assumed the OP is in the U.S. and answered accordingly. Another option is the Militia movement; if you have mental health issues, you'll fit right in. In some of them, it may even be a prerequisite. Pais ( talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Jokes aside, if you have mental health issues, please consider not to hold a weapon on your hand. A much better attitude could be to go with something which could build you up, like outdoor sports or team sports. 80.58.205.34 ( talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I would just suggest getting out there and volunteering in lots of places, especially with other adults. Get exposed to lots of different people's approach to life, and be open minded about accepting some of the ideas and approaches involved. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Scouting UK also do "Network Scouts" for 18-25 year olds.. though there might not be a group in every area. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 11:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you're into motorcycles at all, but if you are, you might think about joining a Biker gang. Some of them are pretty regimented, much like the military. There are some criminal ones, but others do a lot of charity work and generally obey the law. Qrsdogg ( talk) 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

My late father-in-law used to tell me "Growing older is mandatory - growing up is optional". Just something to bear in mind when people tell you you're being unnecessarily childish! -- TammyMoet ( talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

129.130.99.8—what do you mean by "mature"? We may be applying different definitions in our different responses. Bus stop ( talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

When I thought further about the conversation the OP had had, many questions came up. What definition of "maturity" was the manager using? What behaviours did he believe displayed "maturity"? Is the manager's definition a generally accepted one, or is it peculiar to his/her culture/religion? I understand the OP may not in a position to challenge said manager, but if it were me in that situation, I definitely would! -- TammyMoet ( talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I would also question the manager's perspective. I was not very mature, by some measures, at age 24, but I think most people would find me fairly mature now at more than twice that age. I have not done military service. Maturation does not stop at age 24. Since I know that the manager is wrong from my own experience, I don't have much respect for his point of view. However, if you have to work with this person, ask him to list qualities that he associates with maturity, mention that you are disqualified for military service, and ask him to suggest other ways you might develop those qualities. If his suggestions all involve the risk of bodily harm, as military service does, then I question whether this person has your best interests at heart. Could you consider going to his superior with that information and requesting assignment to a different manager? Marco polo ( talk) 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I would be interested to know if the OP has ever held a job. That is often a good first step in gaining maturity. Part of being a mature person is accepting that there are things in life that you have to do, even though you might not want to do them (even a relatively simple thing like getting up each morning and showing up for work on time can aid in maturity). Blueboar ( talk) 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

A couple of points:

Your case manager is wrong. people can mature at any point in their life, and there's no 'state of maturity' to reach. it's an ongoing process that continues over your life.

'Maturing' is a complex phenomenon. Basically 'maturing' means finding better, more satisfying ways of existing in the world that's given to you. Often times the next step in maturity is completely incomprehensible - you cannot make sense of it until you've taken the step; and once you've taken the step, you have a had time making sense of the way you thought before. Most people do not take a step up in maturity until they are dissatisfied and uncomfortable with their current state of existence (part of the reason why the rich and powerful in the world tend to be notably immature).

Life experience is good. having to face different facets of life forces you to adapt to new situations, and the act of adapting opens the door to a growth in maturity. It's not sufficient - a lot of times people will adapt to new situations by trying to turn them into old situations, so that they can continue with the same way of existence they've always had - but it does open the door to the possibility. Best thing you can do is to actively avoid trying to force things back into your comfort zone. If you feel unsettled by a situation, be humble and allow yourself to be unsettled by it; accept that you're not quite sure what the problem is and can't figure out how to solve it. If you do that, your own mind will naturally and quietly work on the problem until it figures out a way to make the unsettledness go away, and that will likely be a moment of maturing.

Most of all, just have a little faith in yourself. it will happen naturally if you let it, there's no need to force it. -- Ludwigs2 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I hope to find a job that doesn't require me to leave my apartment, nor has a fixed schedule on which to attend. (I'd have trouble with morning commutes especially in rush hour traffic. Also, I'm not a morning person.)

Therefore, I'd like jobs that only have a due date, but doesn't require me to be at it during fixed times every day, nor go anywhere to do it. Preferably something that I can submit online.

What jobs are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.99.8 ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Some possibilities: freelance translator; writer; composer; (visual) artist. Pais ( talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

See our articles telecommuting and freelancer. As you probably know, very few companies are comfortable with actual employees who work exclusively at home, with the notable exception of, as the telecommuting article states, call center employees. Quite a few more companies are comfortable working with independent contractors who can work on their own schedule on their own, as the freelancer article discusses. The disadvantage of the latter is the need to continuously scramble to line up the next job while you're working on the current one. Being a freelancer, you will not realize the goal of never leaving your apartment (if that is really a goal). People want to meet, in person, the people they do business with. After that first meeting, some managers will be comfortable with never seeing you again and only interacting with you for the remainder of the project via phone, e-mail, and even IM; but you should expect many managers will want to meet with you regularly, at least when a milestone delivery is due. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 18:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You may like to work as a telephone answering service. OK so you might have to meet those who hire you to do this, but you would otherwise be working at home, answering calls for small businesses who can't afford to hire staff. -- TammyMoet ( talk) 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Phone sex worker. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Most employers have a simple expectation that you will show up and do your work for the number of hours specified in your employment contract. Assuming you are looking for a reasonably professional type of job and depending on the employer, you are usually expected to show up some time in the morning (usually before 10am) so that you can interact with your work colleagues. Once you have been there for a while, you might be able to discuss working from home on some occasions. Astronaut ( talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Whatever you do, watch out for fraudulent work-at-home schemes. —Angr ( talk) 11:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I would like to start on trading starter tech stocks. What stock trading software can I download (hopefully, for free?) that has the lowest cost-per-trade and would allow me to buy and sell these stocks fast? ( e-trade, ameritrade, datek, etc.)

I was told not to put all eggs in one basket, so of course I'll diversify by buying stocks from 10 separate starter tech companies at once. (Hopefully the cost-per-trade will remain the same, despite whether I buy from one company, ten, or one hundred. Right?)

PS: Where are some great YouTube lecture videos that gives primers on how to trade stocks online? (As well as specifically about penny stocks?) If the lectures come from the Ivies, then that could be a plus.

Thanks in advance, -- 129.130.99.8 ( talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Why would Ivy League lectures be of any value? Can they even predict the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 ( talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Any of the discount brokerages (Scottrade, E-Trade, etc.) let you trade online for a low commission. They also provide analysis software for free, so long as you have an account. In general, each trade of a different stock is a different commission, although you can trade 1 or 1,000 shares for the same commission. Given the high volume of trading necessary to make money(not to mention the volatility of penny stocks), this is a losing game unless you have thousands (preferably tens of thousands) of dollars in risk capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 ( talk) 17:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note that although it seems very exciting, most at-home day traders end up losing all their money. ^{citation needed} Comet Tuttle ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Excuse me? What makes you say that? Please back that up with a source or some other reputable link. Thanks! -- 70.179.169.115 ( talk) 11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

See Efficient-market hypothesis. Unless perhaps you have the equivalent of PhD in something like algorithmic trading and the resources of a major bank, then you may as well gamble your money at a casino. The "rake" of the stock market in trading fees is I guess more than that of a casino, so you would be worse off. A lot of people will be happy to sell you various stuff such as software and shares. I suggest studying the subject for a few months and trying simulated trades (remembering to take into account transaction charges and real-life delays) before spending any money. 92.15.8.107 ( talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It is common knowledge/folklore that William Penn, Quaker & founder of Pennsylvania colony, received his grant for land in the New World from Charles II to settle a 'debt" the crown owed his father, Admiral Sir William Penn? Can anyone provide details on what occasioned the debt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.86.71 ( talk) 12:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

According to William Penn (Royal Navy officer), he commanded the ship which brought Charles II back to England from the Continent. Perhaps the "debt" was not a financial one, but rather one of gratitude for his role in the Restoration. It also seems that he as a bit of a "double agent" during the Commonwealth period, serving actively in the Commonwealth Navy, while remaining in "communication" with expatriate Royalists. -- Jayron 32 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No, the debt was a financial one. Apparently Admiral Penn was owed £16,000, consisting of backpay, money expended on supplying the navy, and five years' interest on the unpaid debt. -- Antiquary ( talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I know what a 401k is, but what's a 501? 94.27.199.222 ( talk) 13:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you mean a 501(c)? Pais ( talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

A 501(c) is a tax-exempt organization in America. If that's not what you were thinking of, here are some other uses of 501. BurtAlert ( talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

More specifically they're references to the section of the Internal Revenue Code that define them. Shadowjams ( talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please suggest some books and journal articles that explore the negative/brutal side of Che Guevara. -- Dcrucalu ( talk) 13:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Che_Guevara#References is a good start. I'm sure you can peruse those and find ones with the perspective you are looking for. -- Jayron 32 13:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Just did a quick Amazon search and found Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him by Humberto Fontova. From the title and the description it seems pretty critical. BurtAlert ( talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

We have an article about Humberto Fontova which covers that book and another he's written on the same subject. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Will Brits stop seeing the Middletons as middle class after the wedding? It's surely amusing that they are seen as middle class despise their millions and the top education of their children. 80.58.205.34 ( talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Will they suddenly gain noble ancestors after the wedding? Certainly, Kate and William's children will no longer be of the middle class, but under the usual British understanding of class, its not a thing thats solely tied to wealth. People who get very rich doing very middle class things didn't instantly become "upper class". Likewise, there have been very poor noble families who wouldn't be considered not nobility merely because they had no money... -- Jayron 32 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Noble families never - ever refer to themselves as poor. Financially distressed perhaps, but never poor ! After all, the poor live in poverty by choice, where as the nobility are short of liquidity due to misfortunes being forced upon them. Usually blamed on the evil deeds of others which separates them from Dieu et mon droit and the cash that goes with it. -- Aspro ( talk) 16:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You're spot on about money and class being, especially these days, quite separate things. The OP does hint at something that's been annoying me for a while. The press have been building this up as the tale of the ordinary girl that became a princess, which is total nonsense. Both of her parents are business proprietor. Her dad's side of the family includes pilots, bank managers, and solicitors ( [1]). And that was back before all of the ambulance chasers that we have today; when going into law, in fact just going to university, really was very prestigious. Fair enough, her mother's side of the family is ordinary; but she's far from being an ordinary girl. — Fly by Night ( talk) 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Your IP address suggests that you are in Spain. Understand that the British have a different concept of class than some other societies. See Social structure of the United Kingdom. Marco polo ( talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

So going by that article... we will have to wait to see if a certain person calls herself Princess Billy of Cymru before we know for sure if she's is U or non-U. Or should that be 'ov' Cymru?-- Aspro ( talk) 18:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you define class purely in economic terms, the Middletons probably rate as "Upper" (or at least Upper-Middle)... but in a land like England, where historically class was defined in terms of Nobility, Squirearchy, Merchants and Peasants, things are a bit more complicated. Blueboar ( talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

In the UK, working class and middle class are determined largely by how you live your life, just as in the US; upper class, however, is determined by your family. You can become upper class by marrying into the upper class, so I think Kate could easily be considered upper class after the wedding. In the past, the rest of her family might have been able to ride into the upper classes on her coattails, but I don't think that kind of thing happens much any more (it's not like there's an active royal court that you can get your family positions in). -- Tango ( talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

…because not many people in Britain, besides the tourists, give a damn. — Fly by Night ( talk) 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Class is commonly used to refer to two different yet related complexes: social hierarchies of cultural status; and, social relationship to production. Both the Middletons and Windsors extract surplus value from the UKGBNI working class, and from the international working class, through their ownership of capital or control of apparatus that is effectively equivalent to the ownership of capital in value terms (the UKGBNI parliament). They are both "bourgeois". However, in terms of the social hierarchy of cultural status their positions are determined differently, with reference to survivals of pre 19th century culture mainly through inheritance. It is possible to be "bourgeois and middle class" "bourgeois and noble / upper class" and "bourgeois and working class". It kind of depends on why you're conducting a class analysis. British royalty has long accepted the commercial basis of their state's power. And this is yet another stitch up wedding to cement the British bourgeoisie's hegemony over social discourse. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Or, you know, they could actually love each other.-- Britannicus ( talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• You know, the fact that he seems to be a genuinely nice chap who hasn't fucked around his girlfriend and genuinely wants to marry her means that I've excluded him from my opinion that a Cromwellian solution is appropriate for the house of Windsor. Is this not a kind of love? Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

"...who hasn't fucked around his girlfriend ..." That's not the impression I got. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

This is a specimen of British slang that I'm not sure I understand, but I think it means that he hasn't cheated on his girlfriend, and the article you linked gives no evidence that he has. Marco polo ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Not quite. It means to mess someone around. Cheating on them would count, but so would numerous other things. -- Tango ( talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That works no matter how you parse it: fucked around his girlfriend and fucked around his girlfriend. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, working collar folks who started their own business, made a success of it, and were able to send their daughter to an exclusive school. Hardly qualifies them as upper crust. "British bourgeousie's hegemony over social discourse"? A bit of a left turn, no pun intended. No maybe it was. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You obviously didn't take the time to read my first post, nor follow the link to her family tree. Do you call pilots, bank mangers and solicitors "working collar folks"? Having three generations of solicitors starting in the 1800's is far from being "working collar". As little time ago as the 1950's, a university education was a really big deal, reserved for the privileged few. — Fly by Night ( talk) 22:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I've never heard the expression "working collar" before. Is it a portmanteau of "working class" and "blue collar"? —Angr ( talk) 08:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fly by Night could be right here: isn't it much more pleasant to believe that Kate is from an ordinary middle-class family and that your daughter could be the next one who's married by a royalty? – b_jonas 13:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

In the UK, is the use of post-nomial letters regulated in any way? As in, if I go round referring to myself as Bill Bloggs MA even though I don't have a degree, is that itself illegal? What about Bill Bloggs CBE? Or Bill Bloggs FRSA? (Not a request for legal advice because I don't want to do these things – my name isn't even Bill! – but as a matter of interest.) ╟─ Treasury Tag► presiding officer─╢ 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Regarding post-nominals arising from military decorations (e.g. VC): Section 197 of the Army Act of 1955 made it a criminal offense if someone "falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any suchdecoration". Whether simply having VC on your business card would be sufficient to trigger that I don't know, but on the face of it, it might have been. Apparently this provision was altered in the Armed Forces Act 2006, but as it's massive I can't find what that change was. 87.115.52.162 ( talk) 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

In Britain you are normally free to use any name you like as long as you are not doing so for fraudulent purposes. I don't see why the post-nominal part shouldn't be the same (unless it is specifically prohibited in particular cases). But perhaps if you used an honour or qualification you weren't entitled to, you might have to work harder to establish that this wasn't for fraudulent purposes. -- ColinFine ( talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

In Britain you are normally free to use any name you like ... Except Princess Catherine. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That's her title, but there's nothing to stop her from calling herself Kate. Or Gertrude, for that matter, if she's of a mind to. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I think Mitch's point is that Princess Catherine is not her title, even though William asked for it to be. Pais ( talk) 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm sure she could call herself that anyway. At no small risk of causing trouble. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Pretending to have a degree you don't really have for personal gain (eg. to get a job) would be fraud. I don't think there is any specific law about post-nominal letters, though. -- Tango ( talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you decided to call yourself John Smith, M.D., you could probably get away with it if you merely wanted to work at McDonald's. If you opened a business as a physician, that could cause some problems. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you opened a business as a physician without actually being a medical doctor, you'd be in problem no matter what name you used. – b_jonas 13:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I am trying to find instances of anti-slavery concepts and thoughts in history from about 1600 back. I would really like to find an example where someone put 2 and 2 together and said that man by nature (or perhaps by God) has the right to life and liberty and that taking these rights from a man without due cause would be immoral and unjust. The Stoic view just seems like they were trying to rationalize doing what they knew to be wrong. Can anybody point me in the right direction? -- 65.195.232.118 ( talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Well this is way back there. B.C. but I believe Plato wrote some stuff about self-determination and freedom/liberty. 190.56.107.254 ( talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The Lollard medieval priest John Ball was a major organizer of the Peasants' Revolt against the English feudal system - which placed the serfs at the very bottom, with few rights - in 1381. The rebellion became very bloody - the Lord Treasurer was killed, the Tower of London was stormed, as was the home of the king's uncle - but among Ball's quotes was this statement, "From the beginning all men by nature were created alike... ." DCI2026 ( talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Our article on Abolitionism has examples going back to the early 16th century, including the New Laws of 1542 which banned slavery in Spanish New World. (In 1545, the laws were repealed, but still, there were there for a time...) -- Mr.98 ( talk) 01:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't need a philosopher to know that oppressed people want to be free. (You do need a philosopher to explain how in fact people are better off under oppression.) See Spartacus. And certainly the teachings of Jesus Christ are against slavery if they're against anything (even without a specific reference to the matter).-- Rallette ( talk) 06:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Just a comment on the original statement that slave-holding societies should have figured out that "man by nature (or perhaps by God) has the right to life and liberty and that taking these rights from a man without due cause would be immoral and unjust": I think many people in ancient societies did hold this view. Unlike us, however, they thought that if someone was captured as a prisoner of war, or found guilty of a particularly heinous crime, then that would (in their societies) constitute "due cause" for taking them into slavery (see " Slavery#Ancient"). For them slavery was just as natural a punishment as throwing felons in jail is for us. Gabbe ( talk) 07:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

@User:Rallette: The Bible and slavery seems to imply that both the Old and New Testaments are pretty vague on the issue of slavery. It actually does take considerable work to consider human beings who are less well off than you, who are less "civilized" than you, who are a different color than you, etc., are actually accorded the same rights as you. The idea that this is self-evident (rather than the result of an ongoing process of Enlightenment, which is hardly complete) is belied by the historical record. There is ample evidence that people normalize received privilege quite easily. They continue to do so to this day to lesser degrees than slavery. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 12:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You won't find much. Concepts of equality in the Ancient world were all 'in group' equality: You'll find liberal democratic leanings in Greek thought, Roman thought, even ancient Hebrew (pre-Judges) thought, but only with respect to Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews. Outsiders viewed as non-people, to be dealt with as needed. Universalistic egalitarian principles really began with Christian monotheism, and even that took a thousand years before it shifted from equality in God's eyes to equality in man's eyes (beginning with Protestant secularism, I'd guess). You'll have best luck with Roman philosophers (Maybe Augustine?), or by shifting to non-European contexts (some forms of Hindu and Buddhist thought are broadly egalitarian). -- Ludwigs2 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Our article Slavery in Britain and Ireland quotes Anselm of Canterbury at the Council of London (1102); ""Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals.". This is thought to have carried moral rather than legal force. A reported quote from an English court case in 1569 over a slave imported from Russia; "that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in." The slave was freed. More details at Slavery at common law. Alansplodge ( talk) 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Still, these sentiments were not meant to be universal either, but explicitly confined to either a geographical locality (England) or perhaps Christians in general. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 19:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The article about William Francis Ainsworth (cousin of the novelist William Harrison Ainsworth) in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states:

Ainsworth's next venture, the Kurdistan expedition, was altogether less successful. The Royal Geographical Society, one of the supporters of the Euphrates expedition, and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge undertook an expedition to the survivors of the Nestorian church to purchase or transcribe ancient manuscripts in their possession. An ulterior motive was to map and explore remote areas which were politically sensitive and possibly contained mineral deposits. Ainsworth was put in charge and went to Mesopotamia, through Asia Minor, the passes of the Taurus Mountains, and northern Syria, where he was arrested as he observed the battle of Nasib in 1839. Although the British ambassador secured his release, his maps and plans were confiscated and their irrelevance to the Nestorian church made public the real motives of the expedition. Ainsworth returned via the Kurdistan Mountains and Lake Orumiyyeh in Persia, continuing through Armenia and reaching Constantinople late in 1840.

Does anyone have more information on the battle of Nasib in 1839? I have been unable to find anything by googleing. Thanks. P. S. Burton ( talk) 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I think I found it, Battle of Nezib. P. S. Burton ( talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply