They also are a minority and don't significantly affect the propogation of their individual species, nor do they make hysterical arguments about the end of the world.

He wasn't gay.
He was a celebrity chef, that explains the grave goods.

Well since evidently in the US we have a hard time burying people correctly, I think we can cut the Geico Reps a little slack for making one mistake.

I suppose these "scientists" did not both to consider lazyness on the part of the burial party in their hypothesis?

I doubt the cave dudes did anything consistently and with unvarying precision.

Many times I wonder why I am sweating my Dissertation if this the "quality" of scientific investigation. :D

Looks like the picture was perfectly set up, nice how they dug it all out and put every thing back in place perfectly setup..

Some joke or propaganda.

Or maybe the archeologists know the culture they're studying?

And has it been demonstrated that every single cave dude took it so seriously that in every single case they always buried dead dudes the exact same way?

No, of course not.


This conclusion that these "scientists" are making would be an example of the logic fallacy of Reverse Fallacy of Accident

Or if you want to be a pompous jerk like me: a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter :know:

Simply because "A" has been observed across a wide sample, does not mean that all or any future samples will reveal "A". This is why polls can only serve as general indicators.

So unless these "scientists" can demonstrate that a group of dead guys were all buried by the same group of diggers, at the same time, under the same circumstances AND this was the only one what was buried differently, their conclusion is not supported. :nope:

Boy I can just imagine my trying to get this stuff past my Dissertation committee. My Chair would have my guts for garters. :oops:

Getroffene Hunde bellen, eh?
Was this a quote? Sorry, you must read another subsim forum, I didn't see the quote tag in my post. Please don't think that my statement was exclusively addressed to you. Besides: claiming irony for oneself and crying when another guy uses a hyperbole: that's weak.

It seems that Señor DarkFish had just quoted one of the things which I also had in my mind. To do you a favour, here's the whole quote:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...66&postcount=7
no difference between homosexual and heterosexual people? - Yup, only in sexual preferences
same sociological importance for society and culture? Yup, as cultural and sociological importance depends on individuals, not (inhomogeneous ;)) groups
very same biological meaning? Not if you only think in terms of procreation. However I refuse to see humans as insects or breeding machines whose only purpose is the upkeep of the species. Sorry, I cannot follow the rational, determenistic way, as I have a brain, a mind and emotions and can't follow only instincs or whatever way that the evolution has planned for humanity.

Yes, and in the second paragraph I can read the fear that we wouldn't be here if our forefathers participated in homosexual activities.
Not only in this statement, but also in others, you reveal a very particular german Angst that we are all going to die out.

Where are all these societies based on homosexuality - or did they all already die out? :haha:
Hell, just following the strange assumption that people promote or advertise homosexuality: would it change the percentage of gays? Or just the other way around: do societies that oppress homos have a lower percentage of them? Maybe, but it is only because in countries like Iran a certain amount of gays is at the crane and not in the closet.

What about people who procreated before they discovered their homosexuality? Or lesbians who get impregnated? Are they better than others like me and my Frau who decided not to breed? What about working gays who pay taxes in comparision to families who live off welfare? Is breeding good as a self-purpose?

Funny that you give thumbs up to an example from societies where homos had a special, even privileged, status, as this seems that something you (plural 'you' like in 'y'all') don't want to give them. Besides, I never heard of anybody sane from the gay community demanding special rights.

Maybe you're both right. The people who buried him just wanted to **** with later archeologists. "Hey, let's bury this guy facing the other side" - "Yes, and let's add some pottery!" - "Man, I'm laughing my arse off when I imagine the dumb faces of the people who will dig him out in the future!" - "And just imagine the discussion in submarine simulation forums!" :rotfl2:

Well they have. Apparently several graves ("group of dead guys") were found buried by members of the same culture ("group of diggers") all in the same timeframe and this was the only different one.

It's impossible to say with 100% certainty the skeleton was gay. But if you ask me it's pretty certain there's something special with this skeleton, and that "something special" could very well be that he was gay.

I wonder if you would have made this comment and had put scientists between quotation marks if the conclusion had been "The caveman was a god-fearing christian republican gun owner." I highly suspect you don't believe the conclusions because you don't like them.

or you want to believe it because you like it. Something you want to tell us Darkfish? come on, we are an open, enlightened group. :woot:


back to the OP, it could be a special ritual for Gay members, but hard to tell based on the skeleton. It could just as easily have been a "hermaphrodite", genetically male, but with female sexual organs, so "she" would have lived her life as a female.

I see no reason why an ancient culture would have had a "special rite" for homosexuals. In ancient times, in Rome and Greece, it was considered normal to be bisexual and no one really cared who (or what) you had sex with. Funeral arrangements were based on class, not sexual orientation. I personally think the researchers here are projecting too much of their modern hangups into this situation.

Sorry. But he could not have been Gay.
There was no such word nor term as 'Gay' back then.
Hell, Gay is a word that was adopted from a totally different meaning until recently!
Anyone recall the Gay 90's?
(In reference to the 1890's)

Maybe Oglagremph or something like that.
But not Gay.
:D

naw mate, I think you're doing Platapus wrong - besides the gun part ;). He's not really known here for his rants against gays. Even if he would have a political stance you don't like, his argumentation was straight (no pun intended :)) from a scientific point of view. He's a big guy and can speak for himself, but I think this was uncalled for.

:rotfl2:
Not that long ago indeed. When i was in the US in the 80s, I was at a fun fair that had a gay ride. I thought it was pretty discriminating against straight people, untill somebody explained it to me...;)
It was the same for me as I grew up learning British English, when I said "Let's light a fag!" - "Penguin, why the hell do you want set a homosexual on fire?" :haha:

Well I like the word gay better. The 'Enola Oglagremph'; it just doesn't sound right :haha:

I appreciate what you wrote. Since Darkfish has no idea who I am or what I do, his opinions are not based on fact but on emotions.

Darkfish, you can apply any label you wish if it makes you feel superior.

However, I think we should agree to disagree so we don't further hijack this thread.

I am reminded of the headline from the Star Bulletin.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/200.../flanagan.html

Atomic Bombers Upset Over Enola Homosexual Exhibit"

DOH! :D