Slashdot Mirror

"Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present."

From http://www.aaanet.org/about/wh....

Not sure what is redundant here.

Is it the proper place? Who knows? The assumptions being made of the disciplines shows how little understanding there is out there for what these two disciplines are.

One of the things that we tell our intro to cultural anthro students is that anthropology is "the most humanistic of the social sciences, and the most scientific of the humanities." In many ways anthropology defies a fixed definition and that is how I like it. It overlaps with history, mathematics, comparative literature, philosophy, visual studies, etc. If you are really interested in knowing what anthropology(-ies) is(are), look at the definitions the association has for itself. See http://www.aaanet.org/ (American Anthropological Association--there are links to associations in other countries on their website). Anthropologist... and electrical engineer

define them

The study that I cited does define the terms.

As a Christian

Most gays and lesbians in the US consider themselves Christians as well. And don't start with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here.

So, you follow the old testament devoutly, do you? After all, that's what you're citing. I assume then that you don't light fires on the Sabbath. I assume that you perform the necessary sacrifices on the Tabernacle. I assume that you don't eat shellfish, because that's described using the same word as homosexuality, an "abomination" (between two men only - they don't comment on two women). I assume that you don't wear cotton/poly blends, because clothes made of two fibers are a big no-no. I assume that you support slavery, the right for a man to divorce his wife with a letter, the punishment of death for a woman who is raped in the city (because she clearly didn't scream loud enough), quarantining yourself after you touch "unclean" things, the treatment of mildew with a levite and sacrificed birds, and the whole host of other things.

Oh wait, or did Jesus cancel everything *except* the orders about the treatment of gay men (again, not women, since they weren't mentioned in the first place)?

does that then make it (a) the truth

If you use the common usage of the term (which they do in the study), then yes, it absolutely is. Otherwise, you're arguing linguistics against the dictionary, and that's guaranteed to be a losing argument.

(B) easier to explain the world around us

Oh, you want to get into the world around us, do you? Take a look at bonobos, one of our closest living relatives, who regularly take part in all manner of sexual activity and family structures. Take a look at dolphins, who are famous for same sex actity. So are penguins. Whiptail lizards can *only* reproduce through same-sex activity (they're all female, and they have to take turns mounting each other to become fertile). Regular same-sex activity has been observed in thousands of animals, so I don't suggest that you refer to the "world around us" in an attempt to support your argument.

Or did you mean human cultures? Again, you're at a loss. Homosexuality (both male and female) is frequent in human cultures throughout history. Don't take my word for it - take the word of the American Anthropological Association.

You can pretend that these thoughts don't exist all you want. But they do exist. And you, like everyone else, have them.

Speak for yourself. I've noticed that many racists try to justify their hatred by claiming that everyone feels the same way. I suppose people just want to feel "normal" and not the exception. Well, let me tell you something: You are the exception. Racism is a learned behavior and you are a part of an increasingly small minority of indoctrinated people.

Your "science" is also horribly flawed. Here are a choice quote from the AAA:

Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions.

Well, the point is this - when you say "race" in reference to skin color, it is a scientific misnomer. Just because in popular culture the term "race" means skin color doesn't make it true. I recommend you check out the American Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race" for an explanation. A better word to use in place of "race" might be "ethnicity". Some people would argue that you are just replacing a word with another that has the same meaning, and there is certainly truth in that. Some people also think it is just a case of being overly politically-correct. However, there is a lot of power in a word, and the history of this word/concept is a very negative one (as the AAA statement shows). Additionally, many people believe there are separate human "races" in the scientific sense. That is, that people of dark brown skin color are akin to a separate "species" when compared with people of a lighter, whitish-pinkish skin color. And as this article points out, there is more variation genetically "intra-racially" than "inter-racially" to use your understanding of the terms.

-Ryan

Anthropology has roughly four main categories: Biologicial(Physical), Cultural, Archaeological, and Linguistic. Ideally researchers take into account all 4 when doing research, but many specialize in specific ones.

You are refering to one specific sub-field of Cultural Anthropology. Please read about anthropology more if you think "an anthrapologist suggesting a biological explanation, which is rather novel if not erroneous." A good place to start would be the American Anthropological Association.

Every state in the U.S. does though.

I'm not sure there is any evidence available online.

Claiming another's work as your own is not copyright infringement.

Whether something infringes on a copyright is difficult to discern; thus, a great deal of case law has been generated on the subject. For example, in a written work, outright plagiarism--the exact copying of words--is copyright infringement, but the copyright does not prevent others from using the facts and ideas used in that work.

In any case, your quibble is irrelevant, because my statement of "wouldn't it be simpler if there were no copyright laws" does not preclude plagiarism laws.

Yes, that way when I write something or record something, I can forget about worrying if someone is going to copy it and claim it as their own.

Umm, no that's plagiarism, not copyright infringement.

Furthermore, "does not preclude plagiarism laws" implies that there are actual plagiarism laws, which there are not (e.g. the California Code [ca.gov] does not include the words "plagiarism" or "plagiarize"). Plagiarism, as we've established, is a common-law doctrine and is not codified.