Little girl's encounter with Pope a farce

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 07:27 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: First off, do you believe society should have gaurd rails?

Yes.

[*michaelsean*]

What the hell is a female caveman?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 08:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What the hell is a female caveman?

Ask the electrical engineering major . . .

(09-28-2015, 03:36 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: When a caveman couldn't hunt his group would bring him or her food. It's not much different.

[Blutarsky]

(09-28-2015, 08:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What the hell is a female caveman?

Lol ..the dingbat liberals got you to conform to gender neutrality too?

Its caveperson!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 09:50 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Lol ..the dingbat liberals got you to conform to gender neutrality too?

Its caveperson!

Why do I hear dueling banjos in the background every time I read on of your posts?

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2015, 09:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why do I hear dueling banjos in the background every time I read on of your posts?

You have your CD player on while reading?

[Blutarsky]

(09-28-2015, 09:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why do I hear dueling banjos in the background every time I read on of your posts?

Ah yes. The movie "Deliverance".
That's funny because every time I read one of yours I picture you as Ned Beatty squealing like a pig.

So, is "caveperson" the correct term going forward there liberal guy? Enlighten us hillbillies atop your perch of liberal superiority lol.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 08:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1.  I would think you could be more specific than cavemen.  Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc.  "Caveman" seems a bit nonspecific for an electrical engineering major.

2.  That is a big assumption to assume cavemen would bring injured female cavemen food when they were too sick/injured/old to hunt because they would bury them with clothes.  (Hell, I didn't even know female cavemen participated in hunting parties.)  Again, I have trouble believing an electrical engineer major would make that type of assumption.

1. I'm not an anthropologist.

2. I don't think it's a big assumption. In fact, I'd assume that as humans evolved they learned the value of having as large a group as possible and did what they could to keep their members alive.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing my major up. Let me tell you, it's hell.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 08:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Exactly.  Where did Benton write they would eat their own family members.  Electrical engineers are usually more anal . . . err . . . detail oriented.

He said they ate members of their own group. For early humans there was most likely a blood relation. Obviously they ate their enemies. That stuff still happens today.

[Benton]

(09-28-2015, 07:31 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Where does it say they would eat their own family members?

Where did it say they helped them while they were eating them?

[Benton]

(09-28-2015, 05:31 PM)Benton Wrote:

There's more evidence (as in some) cavemen ate those who couldn't hunt instead of went and did their work for them. Cannibalism wasn't uncommon according to fossil research, especially eating children.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/cannibalism-early-humans-bones-101213.htm

(09-28-2015, 11:18 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: He said they ate members of their own group. For early humans there was most likely a blood relation. Obviously they ate their enemies. That stuff still happens today.

Want a mulligan here?

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 12:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Want a mulligan here?

No go ahead and show me where it says they ate their own, simply because they couldn't take care of themselves. I skimmed and didn't see it.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 12:52 AM)Benton Wrote: Where did it say they helped them while they were eating them?

I read the short one, it said they ate those who had died, not those were simply sick or hurt. Does the long one say that?

[Benton]

(09-29-2015, 01:10 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: No go ahead and show me where it says they ate their own, simply because they couldn't take care of themselves. I skimmed and didn't see it.

No, really. Go ahead and play the hole again before you look like a totally illiterate goofball.

I'll lead you a little bit here. You didn't see if because I didn't say it. They ate people, which is contrary to your unfounded statement they cared for those who couldn't care for themselves. Instead of making obtuse, erroneous statements, take the mulligan. Cavemen didn't care for the weak, they ate them.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 01:18 AM)Benton Wrote: No, really. Go ahead and play the hole again before you look like a totally illiterate goofball.

I'll lead you a little bit here. You didn't see if because I didn't say it. They ate people, which is contrary to your unfounded statement they cared for those who couldn't care for themselves. Instead of making obtuse, erroneous statements, take the mulligan. Cavemen didn't care for the weak, they ate them.

Hold on, it said they ate the dead, not the weak. Can you show me where it said they ate the weak? Not saying it didn't, I didn't read the long article. tldr.

Oh and obviously, you're wrong to say that for all of them, as there have been many burial sites found with bodies that been laid to rest with care, and not consumed.

[Benton]

(09-29-2015, 01:23 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Hold on, it said they ate the dead, not the weak. Can you show me where it said they ate the weak? Not saying it didn't, I didn't read the long article. tldr.

Oh and obviously, you're wrong to say that for all of them, as there have been many burial sites found with bodies that been laid to rest with care, and not consumed.

You made an erroneous statement based off of some 'documentary or something' you watched.

I pointed out scientific evidence cannibalism occurred. You opted not to read anything, but go with something you may have heard.

Do a google search. It'll save us both time.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 01:48 AM)Benton Wrote: You made an erroneous statement based off of some 'documentary or something' you watched.

I pointed out scientific evidence cannibalism occurred. You opted not to read anything, but go with something you may have heard.

Do a google search. It'll save us both time.

I never said cannibalism never occurred, and now you can't prove the statements you've made, seems like.

And seems like proving statements is a hardcore thing around here.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 11:12 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Ah yes. The movie "Deliverance".
That's funny because every time I read one of yours I picture you as Ned Beatty squealing like a pig.

So, is "caveperson" the correct term going forward there liberal guy? Enlighten us hillbillies atop your perch of liberal superiority lol.

I'm not surprised to learn you spend your time fantasizing about homosexual rape and sodomy. Must be a conservative guy thing.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 11:15 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: 1. I'm not an anthropologist.

No, but you watched a documentary. Allegedly.

Quote:2. I don't think it's a big assumption. In fact, I'd assume . . .

You make another assumption after stating you don't think it's a big assumption. Okay, have it your way; it's a normal sized assumption. Emphasis on assumption.

Quote:I'm not sure why you keep bringing my major up. Let me tell you, it's hell.

I'll give you a hint.   It deals with the type of person who says they don't think it is an assumption and then their very next sentence begins, "In fact, I'd assume. . . "

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 08:39 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, but you watched a documentary. Allegedly.


You make another assumption after stating you don't think it's a big assumption. Okay, have it your way; it's a normal sized assumption. Emphasis on assumption.


I'll give you a hint.   It deals with the type of person who says they don't think it is an assumption and then their very next sentence begins, "In fact, I'd assume. . . "

I said I don't think its a big assumption, don't change my words.

I don't believe early humans butchered and ate thier own at the first sign of weakness, and if they did, it was obviously a short lived practice.

And yeah I binged watched a bunch of caveman documentaries once. I started off wanting to see movies but they werent many and most were bad. I liked quest for fire though.

Now it's time for statics class, which is basically classical physics but much more demanding.