You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 08:38:16 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Elliquian Atheists  (Read 35563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #925 on: April 06, 2013, 03:42:59 PM »
Bandita, when you state that "modern feminists" as a category would be "horrified" by a religious rationale for feminism, you are implicitly defining modern feminism as anti-religious. It is not "putting words in your mouth" to state outright what you have implied. If you didn't mean to imply that, that's fine. Just say so. But do not try to pretend you didn't say what you said. It's right there in the thread.

Yes it is.  And you are trolling me.  I stated exactly what I meant in my last post.  Read it. I stated that feminists would not be happy by the tactics of stating that they are the 'softer sex' and 'morally superior'.  That is what I meant, and that is what I said.  If I wasn't clear the second time around, let me be clear now.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING RELIGIOIUS!!!!! It has to do with archaic and no longer accepted definitions of women in society that were once assumed due to evolving religious and social concepts of gender. 

I'm out.  If you cannot understand the simple notion that women probably don't want to be characterized in the same way that they did in the 1920's, that they probably don't want to be thought of as housewives whose only job was to breed and make a lovely home... Then I really cannot talk to you.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #926 on: April 06, 2013, 04:12:59 PM »
Yes it is.  And you are trolling me.

Yep, looks like that's it for me, too. Have a nice day.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #927 on: April 08, 2013, 09:04:02 AM »
Bandita and Cyrano Johnson may well be out but....

i disagree that the need for feminism came out of religion.  I think the need for feminism came out of the fact that women are  phyically weaker than men.  This has been the defining point of male/female interaction for the vast majority of human - and certainly proto-almost-humanh istory.  Obviously, I don't buy into any ideals of a Golden Age of Matriarchy in the distant past.

Feminism can exist because the arena of resolving this cultural disputes has moved from physical conflict to legal conflict in the courts.


There is a saying, said most often at least somewhat jokingly, that 'God Created man, but Samual Colt made him equal.'  I am a technological feminist, I think the reduction if the importance of sheer brute strength as Technology Marches On is the best thing that ever happened to women overall.


We women  in the developed world do not spend our lives making babies, raising children or spinning/weaving cloth.  That is what technological advancement has done for us. tthat is why women have the raw time to be feminist - too ne degree or another.

Religion has long been a prime tool for keeping women and other disadvantaged groups "in their place."  This has been changing, that blade has turned out to cut both ways more sharply than anyone would have thought possible not much more than a century ago ago.  The Koran, to it's credit, appears to gives women more rights than most muslim societies seem willing to grant - which is an edge  many Muslim feminists use with great effect.


Offline Tamhansen

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #928 on: April 08, 2013, 09:19:48 AM »
Bandita and Cyrano Johnson may well be out but....

  Obviously, I don't buy into any ideals of a Golden Age of Matriarchy in the distant past.


Golden age might be overstating, but there is factual evidence of many hunter gatherer societies where genders were equal even if not the same.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #929 on: April 08, 2013, 09:25:14 AM »
Katataban,

Oh certainly.  But the key word is many not all. The sexes were indeed more egual as a trendline in paleo- and mesolithic times. 

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #930 on: April 08, 2013, 11:36:11 AM »
If I remember correctly many theories propose that the inequality of the sexes started with the rise of agriculture.  Hunter/Gatherer societies the men did the hunting and defending, but women brought home the majority of the food through gathering so there was a great deal of respect between them.  With agriculture and town forming, men did most of the farming and building while women took care of the homes and raised children.  So women lost their control over a means of production (gathering) and so were at a disadvantage.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #931 on: April 08, 2013, 11:37:47 AM »
Agriculture was the huge phase-change in human existence, yes.

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #932 on: April 08, 2013, 03:32:44 PM »
That logic seems a bit fishy. First of all, for there to be any talk of "inequality of the sexes", there has to be some sort of concrete, formal social structure where there are "higher" and "lower" levels - you  can't be "unequal" without value, or without variation in that value.

Can we really talk reasonably about sexual inequality in those ancient hunter-gatherer "societies"? (Forget about gender equality - the concept of "gender" has no meaning without social constructs.) Can we talk about sexual inequality in gorilla societies? Seems a bit silly - there are differences between the sexes in animal societies, but we can't really talk about them in the same terms that we talk about sexual inequality in any real, and relevant, way.

You need a civilization before you can have sexual (in)equality in any meaningful way, and that came from the development of agriculture. So if sexual inequality existed since the dawn of agriculture, then it existed since the dawn of civilization - which means we've always had sexual inequality.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #933 on: April 08, 2013, 04:07:34 PM »
Are you in all seriousness comparing hunter/gatherer societies to animals?  Hallmarks and institutions of civilization are not the exclusive territory of people able to conduct agriculture and establish year-old living quarters.  Native Americans were possessed of advanced social traditions, institutions and structure while also being hunter/gatherer traditions.  Tribes of Africa and South America likewise have complex social traditions that are considered quite advanced.  People that survived by raiding and nomadic movement likewise had very structured leadership and social elements.  These are not elements to be compared to a gorilla society.

Simply looking at the definition and rudimentary information about hunter/gatherer societies shows a more equalitarian distribution of the wealth.  This has to do with everyone pitching into the collection and procurement of the necessary resources.  Each person in the society has a stake in the means of production, either hunting or gathering.  The loss of the means of production is a defining moment for women when agriculture picked up and moved into place.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #934 on: April 08, 2013, 05:34:41 PM »
Means of production.... oh my

I am currently reading

 "Womens Work: the first 20,000 years"
Women, cloth, and society in early times
By Elizabeth wayland barber.

And old book, 1994, but one with some very interesting things to say about what women actually did way back when.

Saria,

You put societies for hunter gatherers in quotation marks?  Really?   But not gorilla societies?  Words fail me.

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #935 on: April 08, 2013, 06:13:34 PM »
I put the hunter-gatherer "societies" of early hominids in question marks, obviously not referring to hunter-gather societies of humans who have evolved language and culture and social structure that exist today. I would have thought that was painfully obvious, but apparently not.

Unless you believe in creationism, you must be aware that at some point in our past, our "societies" would have been no different, in spirit, from the "societies" of animals today. Would you say there is "sexual inequality" in ape societies today? Of course not - the idea is silly; the language of "inequality" just doesn't apply to them, because they don't actually have an actual structured civilization.

And so it must have been for our ancestors. There would probably have been some form of "society" much like the "societies" of modern apes, but not something where it makes sense to talk about "sexual inequality". Until we settled down and started to develop civilization - which came after (or along with) agriculture - that codified roles and hierarchy, what "society" our ancestors had was not structured enough for there to be any meaning in talking about discrimination or inequality. So you can't meaningfully talk about sexual (in)equality in THE ANCIENT hunter-gatherer "societies" OF OUR EVOLUTIONARY ANCESTORS. You can't meaningfully talk about sexual (in)equality until after civilization came along, which was after sedentarization due to the development of agriculture.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #936 on: April 08, 2013, 06:19:26 PM »
The problem, Saria, is that you can only equate agriculture with civilization if you are willing to throw out all hunter-gatherer societies as "uncivilized". Which is... uncomfortable, to put it mildly.

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #937 on: April 08, 2013, 06:38:41 PM »
The problem, Saria, is that you can only equate agriculture with civilization if you are willing to throw out all hunter-gatherer societies as "uncivilized". Which is... uncomfortable, to put it mildly.
Wait, what? That's absurd! You're saying that because I say that our species didn't develop civilization until we developed agriculture - which, by the way, is the prevailing scholarly thought on the subject - that means that every group that doesn't practice agriculture hasn't developed civilization? Seriously? The words I've highlighted demonstrate where you've crossed rails and jumped to a completely different idea.

So if I said, "our species didn't develop germ theory until they developed glass-making" (which is true), then you're going to tell me that I'm saying that any group that doesn't blow their own glass thinks that diseases are spread by demons or miasma? Really? So do you blow glass? Probably not. Does that mean you've never heard of germs?

I said, "our species did not develop civilization until we developed agriculture". That is true, so far as we know. Explain to me how you go from there to "if you don't do agriculture, you're uncivilized"?

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #938 on: April 08, 2013, 06:41:19 PM »
I'm glad you all changed the subject.  Thank you.

I'd like to say, if anyone wants a well researched study into how women and men acted in pre-agricultural societies, which is the term I'm going to use to avoid confusion, I'd say that Sex At Dawn is a great read.  I know the jist of what it says, but I'm not done reading it yet.  Still, it covers this subject really well.

Edit: authors: Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 06:42:57 PM by Bandita »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #939 on: April 08, 2013, 06:47:09 PM »
You need a civilization before you can have sexual (in)equality in any meaningful way, and that came from the development of agriculture.
Emphasis mine. You are clearly stating that civilization is derived from the development of agriculture. Therefore any society which did not develop agriculture is not civilized. Do you not see the problem here?

Offline Healergirl

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #940 on: April 08, 2013, 07:00:28 PM »
Saria,

Ancient mgenerally is taken to mean, within recorded history.  The term is fairly unambiguous iin terms of usage.  Pre human is paleolithic at the earliest.Since we were discussing human societies and not pre-human societies, the lack of clarity was opaque indeed.  Frankly, if you are going to enlarge the scope of the discussion - which I do not object to at all - you really do need to let somebody who isn't living in your skull know about it when you do it.

I'm still slightly taken abackthat you would belittle pre-human societies with quotes in relation to gorilla societies.  I am quite comfortable discussing non-human animal societies and feel no need to put quotes around the term when discussing them.  Social organization among animals - even f only temoporary - is well documented.  I am even willing to admit taht plants may have some rudimentary form of social organization - there is some very interesting research along those lines.  far from conclusive, but interesting.

ephiral,

How do you define civilization? Literally, the term means at its'  etymylogical roots "to live in cities".


 

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #941 on: April 08, 2013, 07:04:12 PM »
Emphasis mine. You are clearly stating that civilization is derived from the development of agriculture. Therefore any society which did not develop agriculture is not civilized. Do you not see the problem here?
No, what I clearly said (and as I clarified later, I meant it in the context of discussing the history of our species) was that civilization WAS derived from the development of agriculture, as it was. Note the past tense in what you quoted from me: "came from", not "comes from".

I did not say that civilization always, or even usually - or even sometimes - comes from the development of agriculture. I said it CAME FROM - and in the case our species, which was the context of what I was saying (which should have been obvious, but even if not, it was clarified explicitly a moment later), it did.

You are being either dishonest or disingenuous, taking a statement that was clearly about a specific instance, and claiming that I meant it generally. So if I said "a cell phone survived (past tense!) a drop from a sixth story balcony (which is true!)", you would be claiming that I said "cell phones (in general) survive (present tense?) drops from sixth story balconies" - or even worse, claiming that I said "cell phones always survive drops from sixth story balconies". That is false. You are misrepresenting what I wrote.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #942 on: April 08, 2013, 07:31:33 PM »
Saria, you are assuming that the entire species developed agriculture, and did so at (roughly) the same time. This is patently untrue. Or are you saying that the development of agriculture in one place at one time magically transformed isolated hunter-gatherer societies that had no contact with the farmers (for thousands of years afterward, in several notable cases) into civilized societies, despite them not changing one iota?

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #943 on: April 08, 2013, 08:03:13 PM »
Saria,

Ancient mgenerally is taken to mean, within recorded history.  The term is fairly unambiguous iin terms of usage.  Pre human is paleolithic at the earliest.Since we were discussing human societies and not pre-human societies, the lack of clarity was opaque indeed.  Frankly, if you are going to enlarge the scope of the discussion - which I do not object to at all - you really do need to let somebody who isn't living in your skull know about it when you do it.

I'm still slightly taken abackthat you would belittle pre-human societies with quotes in relation to gorilla societies.  I am quite comfortable discussing non-human animal societies and feel no need to put quotes around the term when discussing them.  Social organization among animals - even f only temoporary - is well documented.  I am even willing to admit taht plants may have some rudimentary form of social organization - there is some very interesting research along those lines.  far from conclusive, but interesting.

Ancient mgenerally is taken to mean, within recorded history.  The term is fairly unambiguous iin terms of usage.
Really? Gee. You might want to inform the rest of the world, then.

Because the first Google result for "ancient human" for me was this Wikipedia page (which, by the way, is also the result for "ancient humans" on Wikipedia itself). I note on that page it says: "Nonetheless, according to recent genetic studies, modern humans seem to have bred with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans." But maybe you're suggesting the Neandethals kept historical records?

(Incidentally, the first Google image result for "ancient humans"... the folks at Scientific American... they also might need your correction, because I have a hunch these people weren't recording their history either.)

You know, if you're going to make a claim that can be disproven with about three seconds of Googling... it might not be the best claim to make.

Since we were discussing human societies and not pre-human societies, the lack of clarity was opaque indeed.  Frankly, if you are going to enlarge the scope of the discussion - which I do not object to at all - you really do need to let somebody who isn't living in your skull know about it when you do it.
I did not "enlarge the scope of the discussion", because I was talking about human societies, and only mentioned pre-human societies in making the point about early human societies. There would be no need for you to be concerned that you are not in my skull if you would only read the words I've written, rather than putting your own spin on them.

I'm still slightly taken abackthat you would belittle pre-human societies with quotes in relation to gorilla societies.  I am quite comfortable discussing non-human animal societies and feel no need to put quotes around the term when discussing them.  Social organization among animals - even f only temoporary - is well documented.  I am even willing to admit taht plants may have some rudimentary form of social organization - there is some very interesting research along those lines.  far from conclusive, but interesting.
I am not "belittling" "pre-human" "societies" when I compare them to gorilla "societies". First, I'm not talking about just pre-humans, I'm also talking about primitive humans. Second, humans and gorillas are both apes, and I see nothing "belittling" about that, so your moral outrage is really uncalled for. And third, the reason I keep putting "societies" in quotes is to make clear that there's a difference between a "society" that exists in social animals - like apes and early humans - and society as it exists today.

And of course I'm aware that social organization exists among animals - I'm the one who started talking about animal societies, derp - but there is clearly a difference between the social organization of a "society" of gorillas and the social organization of a society of humans. And you know this, too - you wouldn't seriously criticize a band of gorillas for having a sexist society... because a criticism like that is meaningless in that context of their "societies". In gorilla "societies" (and other animal "societies"), there is no design or intentionality in the organization - a gorilla "society" spontaneously forms based on the biology of gorillas. In the modern human case, humans can and do organize our societies - that's what civilization is - and it only makes sense to talk about social inequality in that kind of society. It makes no sense to talk about "social inequality" in a gorilla "society" or a pre-civilization human "society". But I'm just repeating what I said to begin with.

Human societies are not simply the result of our biological impulses, and they have not been since we first settled down during the sedentarization period following the develop of agriculture, and starting building civilizations. They are designed, and their social structures are set up by agreement (tacit or otherwise) of the people in them. That's why we can criticize their structures - we're not criticising "apes for being apes", we're criticizing what apes have designed.

Is that clear now? Here it is in point form:

  • You can't criticize animals for being what they are - you can't criticize the structure of a gorilla/wolf/ant/ape society that is simply a by-product of the animal's biology. (Well, you can, but your criticism is meaningless.)
  • Humans are apes, and at one point in our past, we were no different - in spirit - from the apes of today: our "societies" were merely a function of our biological nature. They were not planned or designed, and what "structure" they had was an accident of nature, not a product of intelligent will. (That should seem pretty obvious, I would think.)
  • Human "societies" did not develop planning, design or intelligently-willed structure until the dawn of civilization. (In fact, that's so obvious, it's a tautology.)
  • Humans did not develop civilization until we developed agriculture and sedentarized. (Historical fact, as best as our current science knows.)
  • Therefore: we can't meaningfully criticize the structure of human "societies" before the development of agriculture. We can't say that our earliest hunter-gather societies were more egalitarian than later agricultural societies, because it makes no more sense to talk about "egalitarian" in those hunter-gatherer "societies" than it would to talk about "egalitarian" in modern gorilla societies.

Saria, you are assuming that the entire species developed agriculture, and did so at (roughly) the same time. This is patently untrue. Or are you saying that the development of agriculture in one place at one time magically transformed isolated hunter-gatherer societies that had no contact with the farmers (for thousands of years afterward, in several notable cases) into civilized societies, despite them not changing one iota?

Saria, you are assuming that the entire species developed agriculture, and did so at (roughly) the same time.
No, actually, I'm not. But, do go on. Tell me what else I haven't said or implied, but that I assume.

Or are you saying that the development of agriculture in one place at one time magically transformed isolated hunter-gatherer societies that had no contact with the farmers (for thousands of years afterward, in several notable cases) into civilized societies, despite them not changing one iota?
Yes, there was magic involved. Because there is absolutely no "grey zone" between completely nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, and completely settled agricultural civilizations. It was like, *snap*, one day a group was a nomadic, opportunistic hunter-gather society, the next day they were building fences and terracing. And no group of humans anywhere went part-way along that path - no group ever developed limited gardening and temporary settlements. Yes, because everything I say is a black-and-white absolute that applies to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE.[/sarcasm]

Again, why are you accusing me of these absurd absolutes when I just made a general statement about one group of animals (our ancestors)? Do you deny that our species developed civilization after agriculture? Because if you do, your beef's not with me, but with the academic community. So assuming you agree that it's generally true that our ancestors developed civilization after agriculture, then you agree with what I said... which is that our ancestors developed civilization after agriculture. That's what I actually said - not what you think I said.

What you don't agree with are those things I didn't say, but which - for some odd reason - you keep accusing me of saying. I did not say that agriculture was NECESSARY IN ALL CASES for civilization. I did say that civilization was necessary for there to be meaningful talk of sexual (in)equality, and that we - our ancestors - developed civilization after agriculture. Go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. I said: "You need a civilization before you can have sexual (in)equality in any meaningful way, and that came from the development of agriculture." And, of course (as the next sentence and next post make clear), when I said "that came from", I was talking about our ancestors (note the "we").

  • I did not say: "agriculture is always necessary for civilization".
  • I did not say: "everyone who has developed a civilization has developed agriculture first".

Those are your inventions, not mine.

  • All I said was: "civilization is necessary for social criticism (talk of sexual (in)equality)".
  • And I said: "in our case, civilization came after agriculture was developed".
  • And from that I concluded: "so since you can't do social criticism without a civilization, and since we developed civilization after agriculture, that means you can't do social criticism of our history before agriculture".

What's wrong with what I actually said, not with what you think I said?

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #944 on: April 08, 2013, 08:11:55 PM »
  • I did not say: "agriculture is always necessary for civilization".
  • I did not say: "everyone who has developed a civilization has developed agriculture first".

Those are your inventions, not mine.

  • All I said was: "civilization is necessary for social criticism (talk of sexual (in)equality)".
  • And I said: "in our case, civilization came after agriculture was developed".
  • And from that I concluded: "so since you can't do social criticism without a civilization, and since we developed civilization after agriculture, that means you can't do social criticism of our history before agriculture".

What's wrong with what I actually said, not with what you think I said?

You need a civilization before you can have sexual (in)equality in any meaningful way, and that came from the development of agriculture.
I see no "in our case". I see an absolute.

And so it must have been for our ancestors. There would probably have been some form of "society" much like the "societies" of modern apes, but not something where it makes sense to talk about "sexual inequality". Until we settled down and started to develop civilization - which came after (or along with) agriculture - that codified roles and hierarchy, what "society" our ancestors had was not structured enough for there to be any meaning in talking about discrimination or inequality.
Who are you referring to with "our" here? Be specific, because the clear implication is "humanity's".

Wait, what? That's absurd! You're saying that because I say that our species didn't develop civilization until we developed agriculture - which, by the way, is the prevailing scholarly thought on the subject - that means that every group that doesn't practice agriculture hasn't developed civilization?
So our species, not individual subsets thereof, developed agriculture. I thought you didn't say that.

No, what I clearly said (and as I clarified later, I meant it in the context of discussing the history of our species) was that civilization WAS derived from the development of agriculture, as it was. Note the past tense in what you quoted from me: "came from", not "comes from".

I did not say that civilization always, or even usually - or even sometimes - comes from the development of agriculture. I said it CAME FROM - and in the case our species, which was the context of what I was saying (which should have been obvious, but even if not, it was clarified explicitly a moment later), it did.
Again referring to the species as a whole developing agriculture. And... if civilization came from the development of agriculture, what does that say about several isolated island hunter-gatherer societies that prevailed into the modern era without developing agriculture?

These are things you actually said, not things you like to pretend you said. Try again.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #945 on: April 08, 2013, 08:12:56 PM »
I think it's time for people to take a step back and calm down.  I'm seeing people getting into personal attacks, and that's not what this board (or any other board on Elliquiy) is for.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #946 on: April 08, 2013, 08:43:03 PM »
"Ancient" pretty much means in the period between prehistorical times, and the fall of Rome, around 500 or so. And 'Prehistorical' generally means before the advent of written language.  Thus before "histories" are written.  Thus you get "prehistoric" cave paintings, and "Ancient" Rome. I thought that was common knowledge, but I am a history major, so perhaps not.

Edit:  Okay, apparently 'ancient' can be interchanged with prehistoric in the common parlance.  My bad. Not the term we use, but accepted by the general public.

Edit:  Okay, one more.  That wikipedia article goes to "archaic humans" not "ancient Humans"  However, if you look at the term "Ancient History" it says written historical period.  I think a lot of this is misunderstanding of the term "ancient," which is admittedly used wrong very frequently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 09:15:25 PM by Bandita »

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #947 on: April 08, 2013, 11:15:55 PM »
Edit:  Okay, one more.  That wikipedia article goes to "archaic humans" not "ancient Humans"
Yes, but "ancient humans" redirects to there.

However, if you look at the term "Ancient History" it says written historical period.  I think a lot of this is misunderstanding of the term "ancient," which is admittedly used wrong very frequently.
The phrase "ancient history" may be commonly used to refer to a specific time period (~5000 BCE to the Early Middle Ages it says), but it doesn't follow from that that "ancient" means that same period in every context. "Ancient China", for example, refers to ~2000 BCE to 221 BCE. "Ancient woodland" refers to woodland from before 1600 CE back, with no upper limit on how far back, and "ancient lake" refers to any lake that is at least a million years old.

As you can see from the definition of the word, there is no connection to "recorded history". That only applies in a very limited context: in the specific phrase "Ancient History", used in the context of identifying that specific period.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #948 on: April 09, 2013, 07:47:21 AM »
Saria,

 You put societies in quotes when referring to ancient humans, but not when referring to the society of gorillas.  The use of quotes around a word when presenting two or more examples of the usage of that  wordalways comes across as belittling  when comparisons like this are made.  Whether the writer  intended it that way or not. And since that is a common usage for putting quotes around a word, i.e.  "Well, process a might "work", but process b will as work well", I have trouble understanding your unwillingness  to accept why others might honestly question your intent.
 

And as to just what ancient actually means... there has been plenty of exposition as to the imprecision of the term in common usage in posts above.  I accept that  I misread your intended meaning for the word.


If you did not mean to expand the discussion, why mention gorilla societies or other animal societies at all?

I wouldn't criticize gorillas for being sexist because then we start getting into the very sticky bogs of sapieece and free will - do have gorillas have any?  Probably, but not, I think, on a human scale.  Although  it is arguable  that human rationality is overrated.


Here's a glum thought:   if some non-human primate behavior is objectively sexist in practical effect, behavior we would without hesitation label as sexist if humans were behaving that way, - and I stress if such primate behavior occurs -  that raises some implications as to just how hard-wired sexism is to human nature, in specific:  Was sexism an  unavoidable outgrowth of the artificial and huge change in the  human environment - socially and physically - triggered by the development of agriculture?

I can't begin to answer that.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #949 on: April 09, 2013, 12:46:08 PM »
Here's a glum thought:   if some non-human primate behavior is objectively sexist in practical effect, behavior we would without hesitation label as sexist if humans were behaving that way, - and I stress if such primate behavior occurs -  that raises some implications as to just how hard-wired sexism is to human nature, in specific:  Was sexism an  unavoidable outgrowth of the artificial and huge change in the  human environment - socially and physically - triggered by the development of agriculture?

A friend of mine is vegetarian.  Her argument is that while throughout most of human history we did need meat to survive we actually no longer do - pulses, supplements, etc. can take its place.  So while humans still physically and biologically "need" meat, technology and society have moved to the place where we can replace it.  Essentially human society has evolved faster than human biology.  I'd say its the same in this case - even if there were outstanding, amazing and unarguable reasons for sexism in early civilization viewing them as "innate" is harmful.

I realise that wasn't what you were saying or arguing for, just thought the point was interesting.