> "... I thought this comment of the professor was an interesting eye opener."
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)
Having your eyes opened to believe nonsense is the goal of such so-called 'education'. For all we know the notches were a tally of successful hunts or a scalp tally. Or maybe the notches were to allow a sinew or leather wrapping to adhere to the bone, possibly being used as a handle for a tool. And who trusts a mere picture being held up as scientific evidence of anything?
Delusional people like to read their preconceived notions into everything. The eugenics supremacists in the education racket tell you that your ancestors were cave-dwelling monkeys so you filter artifacts through that lens and confirm that your ancestors were cave-dwelling monkeys.
Anyone who believes that man began living in caves and tried to make a calendar on a bone is an neanderthal cave-dweller's son.
I’m confused by this quote - no sane person would assume a male did something just because we say man did it. In this instance, man would simply be referencing humanity
The want to define whether a male or female did it without any evidence is simply sexist
Isn’t it a shame though that the way we refer to humanity as a whole is by using the specific word that represents only half of humanity?
Its not hard to see how this is exclusionary. Honestly, how many people immediately conjure an image of a woman in their head when someone says “man’s first attempt at X”? Male as the default is the root of the issue here. Its not difficult for us to use more suitable language like " humanity" or “humankind”.
Sandi clearly isn’t up in arms about the language used here, she’s just simply pointing out this exact problem. First thought is of a man’s work. Only through thoughtfully examined details do we invoke a woman’s presence. Men are the default, but why? Many of these ancient cultures revered their women; attributed vast amounts of the success of their people to them and we set up their historic legacy into the future with poor choice of words. Its sad, really.
I agree that English is a constantly changing language, with many words meaning the same thing or single words meaning multiple different things. It’s the case with the male man, derived from werman, as is such with many other words
But your point ignores what I was trying to say
Anybody who feels the need to specify gender with such limited information is simply being sexist. Neither male nor female should be assumed in this instance
This goes for people other than those in the post; scholars and students should be held accountable alike
Whether these historic individuals were male or female is irrelevant. Only their creations truly matter
I get you. All I have to say is this in response: Its easy to say that specifying gender is irrelevant when the speaker is a man. Women have been forgotten or purposely obscured in history books since forever. There’s nothing wrong with positing that a woman may have done X. If there’s an obvious potential for female context, why suppress it?
Interesting report, though for me they have been just as if not more reliable than paste. Been using them for a few years exclusively and my oral health has actually improved, though that might be coincidence.
Either way, the most important benefit for me is the lack of a plastic package. I just put the tablets in my old metal tin, very efficient!
I have not seen a consensus that they are not as effective, and they have definitely been great for me personally. Once you dissolve it in your mouth, it’s literally the same thing as traditional paste: same active ingredients, foaming, the lot.
lemmy.ml
Oldest