6 ms·

Correct me if I am wrong, but this was in a cut limestone plate. So if it was a crime, I am sure the murderer is long deceased and probably not even a homo sapi

Correct me if I am wrong, but this was in a cut limestone plate. So if it was a crime, I am sure the murderer is long deceased and probably not even a homo sapiens.

tokai 2y ago
Still human remains.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- iopq 2y ago
  [citation needed] it's humanoid remains, but not modern human
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I feel like this is peak HN pedantry, but it seems like there's some controversy amongst anthropologists these days as how to sort of colloquially define human; I've heard some say that any species in the genus homo should qualify.
    - galangalalgol 2y ago
      And how to legally define human is extremely controversial and always has been.
    - navane 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        Perhaps my mind is so open that it's in danger of falling out, but when people say that that's so easy to define and then don't do so, I get really confused. I'm like, have you ever seen a dude who looks like a lady? It's a question that's bedeviled sports for a long time actually - in the 60's the Olympics required "nude parades" to check that competitors were in fact women, but obviously that had some problems. I believe they eventually settled on some sort of hormone ratio as the definition.
        iopq 2y ago
        Yes, this dude looks like a lady: https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a/37840f84773c473e-66/s540x810/63354126dc1ffa77ee5b227c41f52e1d7b5e281d.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a...
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        In the classical Olympics, as in all Greek athletic competitions, all competitors were required to be nude during the events. You can't compete in clothes. It didn't cause any problems.
        daemoens 2y ago
        I mean, who actually cares about things like chafing, sunburns, or the awkward stares of spectators? Let's all just embrace our inner Greek and strip down for the 100-meter dash.
        samatman 2y ago
        HN really isn't the place for this conversation, but if we ever found a human whose biological sex was ambiguous using a simple checklist with maybe three tests in it, that would be a first. Woman and man are complex, female and male are not. Yes, this includes all known intersex conditions. No, there's no significant disagreement about those criteria.
        silverquiet 2y ago
        Funny, I think HN is the ideal place for this conversation, though it's a bit weird to get there on this thread. But it's a subject of fascination for me personally, and it's a shame that it's taken on weird political dimensions. I was under the impression that Caster Semenya tends to confound simple categorization like you suggest.
        samatman 2y ago
        "The condition is rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency
    - dclowd9901 2y ago
      Is this because there are people walking around today with a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA and were being cautious not to denigrate them?
  - tokai 2y ago
    Right back at you with the citation needed. Humanoid is not a taxonomic term anymore. All Homo are humans. Never said modern, which it obviously isn't.
    - iopq 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human > Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member.
      - swatcoder 2y ago
        There's no citation for that claim and it would be unlikely for there to be one. It's just some dude's personal impression about a subjective matter (a word in transition), and carries no more weight than any other comment being made here. A more meaningful source would be a usage guide like Garner's Modern English.
        iopq 2y ago
        Okay, link to your source
        denton-scratch 2y ago
        Actually, it is cited. The fragment you quoted is from the lede, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the material. So if you read on to the section "Etymology and definition", you find that the same claim is cited to Merriam Webster. As it happens, this citation is useless, because it doesn't support the claim. Basically, I think it's fraudulent to cite that claim to that MW article.
      - DonHopkins 2y ago
        I don't wanna classify you like an animal in the zoo, but it seems good to me to know that you're Homosapien too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI
  - denton-scratch 2y ago
    I thought the term "humanoid" referred to bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry. Or to human-like robots.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      "Humanoid" refers to anything with a human body morphology (i.e., bipedal, two legs, two arms, head). That can be actual humans, human-looking robots, bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry, or even Barbie dolls I suppose.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    It’s something that looks like human remains, and that needs to be imaged properly to have a definitive answer.
darkhorn 2y ago
You argue with someone and police makes a visit. Searches your criminal history and sees one line "investigated for murder". Guess what might happen. Nothing right? Because we live in a perfect world.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  > Searches your criminal history and sees one line "investigated for murder". That's not even remotely close to how police records work in the US. It fits the narrative, but is completely ignorant of reality.
  - darkhorn 2y ago
    Not everyone lives in USA.
- outworlder 2y ago
  > "investigated for murder" Seriously overestimating the willingness of police to give a shit about what are clearly _really old_ remains. The CYA part about talking to authorities (whoever applicable in your jurisdiction, not necessarily police) still applies. There are often laws about human remains. THOSE would show on your record if this is mishandled.
buildsjets 2y ago
That will be a great comfort to know, after the trigger happy local yokel cops shoot you in the head while executing their no-knock warrant because they think that you are reaching for a hidden weapon.
denton-scratch 2y ago
I think the theory is that if you don't tell the cops before anyone else, then when they find out they might try to bust you for failing to report human remains. Even the dimmest sheriff wouldn't try to persuade a prosecutor that a fossil was the victim of a living murderer.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>So if it was a crime, I am sure the murderer is long deceased and probably not even a homo sapiens. If it was a "murder", it had to be a homo sapiens. Killings by wild animals aren't called "murders". However, if this was a Neanderthal person, it's quite possible the murder was by a fellow Neanderthal, aka homo sapiens neanderthalensis. (Apparently it's still debated whether the Neanderthals are a distinct species or a subspecies of homo sapiens.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Correct me if I am wrong, but this was in a cut limestone plate. So if it was a crime, I am sure the murderer is long deceased and probably not even a homo sapiens.

tokai 2y ago

Still human remains.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
iopq 2y ago
[citation needed] it's humanoid remains, but not modern human
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I feel like this is peak HN pedantry, but it seems like there's some controversy amongst anthropologists these days as how to sort of colloquially define human; I've heard some say that any species in the genus homo should qualify.
  - galangalalgol 2y ago
    And how to legally define human is extremely controversial and always has been.
  - navane 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      Perhaps my mind is so open that it's in danger of falling out, but when people say that that's so easy to define and then don't do so, I get really confused. I'm like, have you ever seen a dude who looks like a lady? It's a question that's bedeviled sports for a long time actually - in the 60's the Olympics required "nude parades" to check that competitors were in fact women, but obviously that had some problems. I believe they eventually settled on some sort of hormone ratio as the definition.
      - iopq 2y ago
        Yes, this dude looks like a lady: https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a/37840f84773c473e-66/s540x810/63354126dc1ffa77ee5b227c41f52e1d7b5e281d.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a...
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        In the classical Olympics, as in all Greek athletic competitions, all competitors were required to be nude during the events. You can't compete in clothes. It didn't cause any problems.
        daemoens 2y ago
        I mean, who actually cares about things like chafing, sunburns, or the awkward stares of spectators? Let's all just embrace our inner Greek and strip down for the 100-meter dash.
      - samatman 2y ago
        HN really isn't the place for this conversation, but if we ever found a human whose biological sex was ambiguous using a simple checklist with maybe three tests in it, that would be a first. Woman and man are complex, female and male are not. Yes, this includes all known intersex conditions. No, there's no significant disagreement about those criteria.
        silverquiet 2y ago
        Funny, I think HN is the ideal place for this conversation, though it's a bit weird to get there on this thread. But it's a subject of fascination for me personally, and it's a shame that it's taken on weird political dimensions. I was under the impression that Caster Semenya tends to confound simple categorization like you suggest.
        samatman 2y ago
        "The condition is rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency
  - dclowd9901 2y ago
    Is this because there are people walking around today with a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA and were being cautious not to denigrate them?
- tokai 2y ago
  Right back at you with the citation needed. Humanoid is not a taxonomic term anymore. All Homo are humans. Never said modern, which it obviously isn't.
  - iopq 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human > Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member.
    - swatcoder 2y ago
      There's no citation for that claim and it would be unlikely for there to be one. It's just some dude's personal impression about a subjective matter (a word in transition), and carries no more weight than any other comment being made here. A more meaningful source would be a usage guide like Garner's Modern English.
      - iopq 2y ago
        Okay, link to your source
      - denton-scratch 2y ago
        Actually, it is cited. The fragment you quoted is from the lede, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the material. So if you read on to the section "Etymology and definition", you find that the same claim is cited to Merriam Webster. As it happens, this citation is useless, because it doesn't support the claim. Basically, I think it's fraudulent to cite that claim to that MW article.
    - DonHopkins 2y ago
      I don't wanna classify you like an animal in the zoo, but it seems good to me to know that you're Homosapien too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  I thought the term "humanoid" referred to bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry. Or to human-like robots.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    "Humanoid" refers to anything with a human body morphology (i.e., bipedal, two legs, two arms, head). That can be actual humans, human-looking robots, bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry, or even Barbie dolls I suppose.
- kergonath 2y ago
  It’s something that looks like human remains, and that needs to be imaged properly to have a definitive answer.

darkhorn 2y ago

You argue with someone and police makes a visit. Searches your criminal history and sees one line "investigated for murder". Guess what might happen. Nothing right? Because we live in a perfect world.

happyopossum 2y ago
> Searches your criminal history and sees one line "investigated for murder". That's not even remotely close to how police records work in the US. It fits the narrative, but is completely ignorant of reality.
- darkhorn 2y ago
  Not everyone lives in USA.
outworlder 2y ago
> "investigated for murder" Seriously overestimating the willingness of police to give a shit about what are clearly _really old_ remains. The CYA part about talking to authorities (whoever applicable in your jurisdiction, not necessarily police) still applies. There are often laws about human remains. THOSE would show on your record if this is mishandled.

buildsjets 2y ago

That will be a great comfort to know, after the trigger happy local yokel cops shoot you in the head while executing their no-knock warrant because they think that you are reaching for a hidden weapon.

denton-scratch 2y ago

I think the theory is that if you don't tell the cops before anyone else, then when they find out they might try to bust you for failing to report human remains. Even the dimmest sheriff wouldn't try to persuade a prosecutor that a fossil was the victim of a living murderer.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>So if it was a crime, I am sure the murderer is long deceased and probably not even a homo sapiens. If it was a "murder", it had to be a homo sapiens. Killings by wild animals aren't called "murders". However, if this was a Neanderthal person, it's quite possible the murder was by a fellow Neanderthal, aka homo sapiens neanderthalensis. (Apparently it's still debated whether the Neanderthals are a distinct species or a subspecies of homo sapiens.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal