Bulldrek v3.0

Check it out. Archaeologists have discovered what some think is a gay caveman in the Czech Republic, which just goes to show that Europeans have always been totally gay. It also goes a long way to explaining how accepting they are of homosexuals in Czechoslovakia.

But I thought you were from Australia?

Isn't it possible they buried him in a feminine manner as a sort of eternal "fuck you?"

SumDumQuim wrote:But I thought you were from Australia?

God damnit! I'm not a caveman!

Sal wrote:Isn't it possible they buried him in a feminine manner as a sort of eternal "fuck you?

Possible, but from what I've heard they were buried with all the trappings that were usual for a burial at the time, so there was a modicum of respect involved. This person was clearly still a part of the community rather than an outcast.

That or the guy just had a good sense of humor. "You guys should totally bury me as a chick."

"I'm just a cavewoman trapped in a caveman's body."

If anyone ever wondered how inexact a science archeology really is, then, well, look no further. To use one of my new favorite acronyms, this "discovery" is what one might refer to as a SWAG, as in: Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

AtemHutlrt wrote:If anyone ever wondered how inexact a science archeology really is, then, well, look no further. To use one of my new favorite acronyms, this "discovery" is what one might refer to as a SWAG, as in: Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

I have two friends that work in argaeology and they said something very similar to what you said.

DV8 wrote:I have two friends that work in argaeology and they said something very similar to what you said.

Well if they work in argaeology aren't they studying how people were gay in the past? Seems their methods of determination would be higher than in archaeology.

Crazy Elf wrote:

DV8 wrote:I have two friends that work in argaeology and they said something very similar to what you said.

Well if they work in argaeology aren't they studying how people were gay in the past? Seems their methods of determination would be higher than in archaeology.

Epic. Win.

Crazy Elf wrote:

DV8 wrote:I have two friends that work in argaeology and they said something very similar to what you said.

Well if they work in argaeology aren't they studying how people were gay in the past? Seems their methods of determination would be higher than in archaeology.

That's a particularly unfortunate typo.

Or an entirely appropriate Freudian slip.

I think it's about the best typo ever. The hot new frat-boy insult is going to be, "Dude, you must have majored in are-GAY-ology."

Wanna do a keg stand?

It's interesting how science plays out in the popular media. Scientific articles are usually full of careful wordings and caveats. Those get erased in the mainstream blurbs and everythign is reduced to a simple half-truth that gets remembered by the masses. It's like the level of truths as "you use only 10% of your brain" is what they are actually aspiring to.

I think that scientists who pander to the press tended to face disdain from scientists thought it helped their book sales. Now, I think their universities congratulate them for getting any kind of notice.

And I'm still annoyed that they dumbed down Scientific American.

Nicephorus wrote:It's interesting how science plays out in the popular media. Scientific articles are usually full of careful wordings and caveats. Those get erased in the mainstream blurbs and everythign is reduced to a simple half-truth that gets remembered by the masses.

There have been some studies about how damaging this is to public perception of science, partially the public then perceives that science constantly is providing certainty, and then contradicting that certainty. They don't know that the original finding didn't include certainty, and the way it's reported makes them forget that science isn't about certainty. These kinds of simplifications are profoundly common in human experience - it's a natural way for us to condense information for transmission or recall - but they're often highly damaging to the accurate perception of the world.

3278 wrote:...but they're often highly damaging to the accurate perception of the world.

Homophobe.

Maybe he was gay. Maybe the burial had some other significance. We don't and really can't know completely. I wouldn't be too surprised, really, some of the oldest poetry the germans made haves a pretty strong male vibe.

But I'm skeptical as to how sure we can be of sexual orientation from burial ceremonies, but, hey, still kinda neat.

Matter fact, I'm still skeptical about how much we can tell about languages spoken and how far groups migrated. It's all so long ago.

Crazy Elf wrote:Homophobe.

You're just angry that he never called.