Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 May 27
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 26 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 28 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 27
editAfrican demographics
editIn Southern Africa in the 1990's there was much talk about how the AIDS epidemic would decimate the black african population leading toward a narrowing of the equilibrium divide between the black/white ethnic groups. This was further compounded with Mbeki's stance on antiretovirals. My question is; has the prediction come true and to what extent? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.97 (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- HIV/AIDS in Africa is the relevant article. Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind is that back in the 1990s, there was no cure for AIDS and being infected was considered a short-order death sentence. The demographic predictions were based on such dramatic premises. However, this is no longer the case, as medical advances now allow people to live with AIDS for decades and lead normal lives. So, the scenario of a whole generation being infected, dying young and not having children did not come to pass (or at least only in much smaller numbers than the catastrophic scenarios circulating 30 years ago). Xuxl (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever impact it had was much closer to the true meaning of "decimate" (reduce by 10% down to 90%), rather than its usual loose meaning (virtually wipe out). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding "true meaning", please see etymological fallacy. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Jack here. I find it hard to accept new meanings of words that develop through ignorance, often the wilful version. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- See also appeal to tradition.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- So "egregious" should really mean "stellar", "outstanding" ("standing out from the flock"). As in, "Jennifer Lopez and Shakira gave an egregious performance during the Super Bowl 2020 halftime". --Lambiam 13:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- That was a daft reply, Lambiam, but I hope everyone remains silly. ("daft" in the original sense of "mild, well-mannered", "silly" in the original sense of "happy, fortuitous, prosperous"). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I find this to be quite an awful (awe-inspiring) conversation.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Some languages descend to the gutter faster than others. pt:wp tells us:
- I find this to be quite an awful (awe-inspiring) conversation.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- That was a daft reply, Lambiam, but I hope everyone remains silly. ("daft" in the original sense of "mild, well-mannered", "silly" in the original sense of "happy, fortuitous, prosperous"). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Jack here. I find it hard to accept new meanings of words that develop through ignorance, often the wilful version. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding "true meaning", please see etymological fallacy. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Para os católicos, a fé consiste na sua livre entrega e amor a Deus, prestando-Lhe "o obséquio pleno do seu intelecto e da sua vontade e dando voluntário assentimento à revelação feita por Ele"
(For Catholics, the faith consists in their free handover and love to God, offering Him "the full obligation of his intellect and of his will and giving voluntary consent to the revelation made by Him").
In English, obsequious has a very different meaning. 80.44.94.249 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)