TheSanSabaSongbird

Fun fact; English used to have three genders --masculine, feminine and neuter-- like most of the other Germanic languages, but they got stripped out over the years for historical reasons having to do with the Danelaw and the Norman conquest and are gone by the time of filthy old Chaucer.

I don't, but I'm not very popular around here either. My country is far from ideal, but I still mostly like it.

Except that the "existing consensus" as portrayed in the article is phony in the sense that no anthropologist has seriously believed or promulgated binary hunting and gathering roles for men and women since at least the 1960s. That may be a notion that exists in the popular imagination, but it doesn't exist in contemporary anthropology and hasn't for decades.

Right? It's bullshit. The comment is half right, but the part about "cope" and rationalization is psuedo-scientific projection.

Nice! Mine is a 3.2 liter V6 6 speed manual but w/o the turbo. It has a shitload of torque in 1st and 2nd, but isn't very fast or powerful once it's in third, 4th or 5th gear, which is fine with me.

It also has an extended bed and a canopy with flip-up windows on the sides. I've installed a roof-rack and have lifted the truck 2 inches together with aftermarket shocks and a new set of leaf springs. I've also installed "bullhorns" on the front together with "brush racks" to protect my old headlights.

All in all she's a pretty mean truck. I've taken her out with friends who are hardcore Jeep aficionados, and she's more than acquitted herself.

Maybe not now, but that's not the point. The point is that we're all human beings and what history shows us again and again is that as a species we are capable of talking ourselves into group-level insanity.

There's nothing about history that should lead anyone to imagine that the capacity for group-insanity is somehow unique to any so-called "race" or national identity.

If you really want to argue that Americans are somehow uniquely subject to such things, you then have to account for the fact that a plurality of Americans are directly descended from European ancestry which in turn means that any difference has to be cultural as opposed to some kind of genetic quality innate to Americans.

The upshot here is not that the US is somehow unique, but is rather that the US is precisely what happens when Europeans take over a brand new continent peopled by civilizations that lack the technology and microbiology to resist.

Again, this idea of yours, that Americans are somehow unique or special, is patently absurd given what we know of history.

I like the way you think!

That's the way it should be and would be here in the US but for a suite of historical and socio-political influences that have tended to fracture the skilled trade unions into different specialties.

Fortunately most of the big unions fall under the AFL-CIO umbrella, but our laws are such that it's not the case that AFL-CIO can negotiate as a single block.

And of course some of that is simply due to scale since what makes sense in one part of the US doesn't necessarily make sense in another.

Leaving the validity of racial classifications aside, if Arabs are "white," then how is Zionism a "white supremacist" project in the first place?

You people need to get your talking points in order.

Well think about it for a moment. What I mean is that they already know that they will be accused of lying regardless, so why bother "fabricating" an ambiguous account when they could just as easily lie and claim that they found a giant Hamas command center?

In other words, they have no incentive to lie about the attack having achieved ambiguous results unless they are actually telling the truth. If you are going to lie, and if you know you won't be believed regardless, why not go whole hog?

Again, they have no incentive to half-ass it unless they're simply stating the truth.

No, it's true. It is the consensus among historians. This appears to upset a lot of atheists, not sure why. It has no effect whatsoever on my own atheism since whether or not the biblical figure has a historical basis doesn't play into my lack of belief in god.

A better way to put it is that the consensus is that a historical figure named Jesus, upon whom the biblical figure is based, did in fact exist. The actual details of his life are almost entirely unknown apart from, as you say, a few key events for which we have multiple credible sources. We have a better read on his teachings, but even that's not entirely clear since a lot of the gospels contradict one another and can be interpreted in many different ways.