/edu/ - Education

>>25105
>Why would you need an example case when the law explicitly says that?
because otherwise you have no evidence of the legal actionability of a claim. you are still avoiding the topic of what makes a gift legally subject - i have proven that its a contract. you make no claim except that if i give someone a broken watch, i can go to jail - i ask for examples; you refuse, therefore you have no evidence.
>It does not mean that you cannot be held responsible if you gift an item that is defective
if i give someone a broken watch, can i go to jail?
>After handing over the item, the situation is treated as if there had been a written contract all along.
so the legal transfer of property is treated in the contractual form? thanks for proving me right, again.

>>25106
>>Why would you need an example case when the law explicitly says that?
>because otherwise you have no evidence of the legal actionability of a claim.
You are saying the law itself isn't evidence. That doesn't make sense. As I already told you I'm arguing from knowledge that I already have. I can tell you that cases like that have already happened, but I cannot provide you with links to the cases in physical books I read over a decade ago. And like most people I don't have photographic memory so I do not remember the names of the people as that was not relevant to me when I read that.

>you are still avoiding the topic of what makes a gift legally subject - i have proven that its a contract.
No you have not. And you will not be able to prove this. What people put in communication is not their entire understanding of the world, but a difference relative to expectation. The law specifies limits and defaults. (An example for a default is time limits that automatically apply when the parties neglect to spell them out in the contract.) And because of this it is also possible to make some deals without written contract. That just means reverting to all the defaults.

And you did not parse correctly the article you linked and you have not rectified that. The article is in line with what I'm saying. You missed this: Some failings of formal requirements can get geheilt (literally "healed" or as the article has it "cured") by actions that are in line with what the actions would also have been with a counterfactual formally correct procedure. Let me quote this bit from the article you linked, once more:
<However, a defect in form is cured by executing performance as promised. See § 518 (2) BGB.

>you make no claim except that if i give someone a broken watch, i can go to jail
Can you stop making up shit for once. My example was getting into legal trouble for food poisoning. The example by Dean Margolis was the bike with bad brakes.
>you have no evidence
The law in Germany is enough evidence and I showed you that. And the American lawyers quoted above tell you it works out the same in the US.

>>After handing over the item, the situation is treated as if there had been a written contract all along.
>so the legal transfer of property is treated in the contractual form?
Are you having a stroke? I'm literally describing a situation without a contract.

>>25108
>You are saying the law itself isn't evidence.
no im not. i provide a condition for the law - you dont.
>I can tell you that cases like that have already happened
great. give an example.
>i cant give any examples
too bad. you have no evidence, then.
>No you have not.
yes i have, which is why i am the only one who has offered evidence from legal citation of "gift contracts".
>Can you stop making up shit for once. My example was getting into legal trouble for food poisoning
so there is no law against providing a defective gift pet se? so to clear things up, answer this question directly:
- can you go to jail for gifting a broken watch?
(and you still havent explained what makes a gift transfer subject to law).

>>25109
>you have no evidence
The law. § 521 BGB. Already quoted over a week ago: >>24975
>i am the only one who has offered evidence from legal citation of "gift contracts".
Earlier in the thread you made a big deal about the distinction in meaning between the words "gift" and "donation", with "donation" referring to a formal procedure with a contract, and "gift" referring to an informal procedure without a contract, a distinction which is followed by neither lay people nor lawyers, neither in America nor in Germany. You claimed that here: >>24976

Now you have quoted yourself a law section about a "gift contract", without acknowledging your turn and without understanding at all what it means when taken in together with the other already quoted laws. The gift contract is NOT something that switches on applicability of the law for acts of gifting. (You can't just opt out of the law by informally gifting bikes with hidden defects, crack, and nuclear weapons.) The gift contract is specifically a promise about the future. It is this promise about a future act which requires the written form in order for the person promising the gift to be held responsible for doing the future act. The requirement is really this limited. Quoting this bit to you from your own source for the third time, maybe you will notice it now:
<However, a defect in form is cured by executing performance as promised. See § 518 (2) BGB.
This is called Heilung des Formfehlers. Let's use the example of promising an old bike as a gift. If you don't gift anything at all after making the promise, you do not get in legal trouble if the promise was merely verbal. But if you then do gift the bike that is Heilung des Formfehlers and the legal system proceeds as if you had given a written promise. If the bike has a dangerous defect, you may be liable if judged guilty of malicious intent or gross negligence, irrespective of whether the promise was in written form or not.

>>25116
I'm only a few minutes in and not sure if he's a crank, but it's certainly interesting. So at worst, really clever crankery (which is right up my alley). Haven't heard of Benjamin Lyons before. Thanks!

>>25118 (me)
Watched the rest and checked a couple of his essays. Hmmm all very vague. He could get really good if he tried writing something longer and deeper instead of dabbling.

>>25117
>Earlier in the thread you made a big deal about the distinction in meaning between the words "gift" and "donation"
yes, because you were conflating the relationship between informal, interpersonal gifting and legally actionable trade (of which the condition you have still not defined, while i have). you implied that a "defective" gift will get you in legal trouble - i suggest a broken watch, you deny it, therefore proving that no such relationship exists except under specific conditions. i ask for the conditions, you refuse to provide them (restating that a defective gift gets you in trouble, which you already disputed, proving me right).
>If the bike has a DANGEROUS defect, you may be liable if judged guilty of malicious intent or gross negligence, irrespective of whether the promise was in written form or not.
DANGEROUS defect? MALICIOUS intent? so the law has nothing to do with the form of the gift itself, like you have already disputed with the example of the watch? therefore, no one is tried for giving a bad gift, but for malicious intent or gross negligence generally - for harm sustained by the gift. this is suggested by your omission of legal precedent. a confident person would give evidence, while you give none.

to conclude:
- a person cannot be in trouble for giving a broken watch, therefore the defect of the gift must be speficic, namely, as a means for malicious intent. the legal condition of the act then has nothing to do with the gift directly, but its underlying effect, which is under the law as a harmful act, not a failure to provide value. the gift is a means, not an end of the law, except where a contract is written (something you denied existing until 2 seconds ago). so then, you have admitted that i was right about everything and it would be preferable for you to desist now. thanks.

>>25120
>>Earlier in the thread you made a big deal about the distinction in meaning between the words "gift" and "donation"
>yes, because you were conflating the relationship between informal, interpersonal gifting and legally actionable trade
False. You were confusing "formal" and "informal" with "donation" and "gifting". And your confusion was pointed out in comment >>24940 (bolding some bits):
>people can promise a future delivery of a thing or service, and in that case they are in debt. And contrary to what you feel about laws, promises and gifts can be quite constrained and formal. In real life, if you gift somebody something that turns out to be defective, you might get sued and actually get punished.
I bolded these bits to contrast with how you misrepresent the argument:
>you implied that a "defective" gift will get you in legal trouble
You are exaggerating.
>- i suggest a broken watch, you deny it
I guess what you mean to convey here with "you deny it" is that I don't make use of your example. That's because it is lacking context. You were told in comment >>24975 that the one giving a defective gift might be held responsible if there is malicious intent or gross negligence. You need to flesh out your scenario.
>i ask for the conditions, you refuse to provide them
Ctrl-f this thread for "gross negligence" to see you are full of shit about no presented conditions. Ctrl-f for "bike" to go through an example provided.
>restating that a defective gift gets you in trouble
You are making the same exaggeration again.
>no one is tried for giving a bad gift, but for malicious intent or gross negligence generally
What level of idealism are you on, son? What is the harm done to others by having evil thoughts? The law explicitly refers to people in roles like giver and receiver of an object. These aren't references to just thoughts in the head about how people feel about themselves, but observable actions.
>to conclude:
>- a person cannot be in trouble for giving a broken watch, therefore the defect of the gift must be speficic, namely, as a means for malicious intent. the legal condition of the act then has nothing to do with the gift directly, but its underlying effect, which is under the law as a harmful act, not a failure to provide value. the gift is a means, not an end of the law, except where a contract is written (something you denied existing until 2 seconds ago). so then, you have admitted that i was right about everything and it would be preferable for you to desist now. thanks.
Holy shit this reads like what a lawyer would say in a Sonichu comic!

>>25123
>gross negligence is the legal condition
wonder why you didnt say this a hundred posts ago?
and so you admit that what people are charged with is gross negligence or malicious harm, NOT the failure to provide an adequate gift. so, this is the end of the conversation. thanks for wasting my time.

>>25126
>wonder why you didnt say this a hundred posts ago?
First mention of "gross negligence" in this thread is >>24975 from two weeks ago, or about 50 posts ago.
>and so you admit that what people are charged with is gross negligence or malicious harm, NOT the failure to provide an adequate gift.
The distinction you make here sounds very innovative because § 521 BGB declares specifically what the gift giver is liable for and not some random dude. Can you give an example of what you mean by delivering harm to a person through an adequate gift?

>>25128
you already conceded your point.
stop replying to me.
thanks.

>>25129
>you already conceded your point.
The original point was that gift givers can be held legally responsible. I stand by that point. Later posts are about the circumstances when this is applicable and give examples of defective gifts. These posts are not taking back the point, they are just more specific (note the "can" in the first point). You tried to show an exemption from liability for gifts without written contracts by quoting an article that mentions § 518 BBG (Form des Schenkungsversprechens), but this is for promises about future gifts only, and so gifting without written contract does not protect the gift giver from liability after the gift transfer. As explained to you multiple times, liability of the gift giver is explicitly stated in § 521 BGB (Haftung des Schenkers), and this is not limited to gifts with contracts.

🗣🗣🗣 "the transcendental deduction of the pure concepts of the understanding" 🔥🔥🔥

Who else enjoyed this thread's epic debate about whether you can gift people dangerous broken trash and be innocent as long as there is no contract?

Modern medicine rediscovers Soviet superscience

Press release:
https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2025-articles/scientists-develop-a-virus-cocktail-to-combat-superbugs

The paper itself:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-025-02130-4

>>25012
Cantillon:
<All these artisans and entrepreneurs serve each other, as well as the nobility. The fact that their upkeep ultimately falls on property owners and nobles is often overlooked. It is not perceived that all the little houses in a city, such as we have described, depend upon and subsist at the expense of the great houses. However, it will be shown later that all the classes and inhabitants of a state live at the expense of the property owners.
Yeah right.

Laughing our loud, literally
https://firstthings.com/voyages-to-the-end-of-the-world/

Finished Solving the Procrastination Puzzle by Timothy A. Pychyl. Basic sensible advice, with a few "comic strips" by Paul Mason thrown in. I'm putting up sarcastic quotes, because that stuff has the look of a comic strip, but it's spiritually a bit too close to things like traffic signs and health warnings.

It's OK and very short. Well duh. It wouldn't be OK if it were long.

Been working through "Set the Night on Fire" about the spectrum of liberal and radical movements in Los Angeles during the 60s, but it at the same time makes me realize that the period from the 1980s to right before 9/11 might as well be a black hole. Sure I know about the general stroke of neoliberalization and the Reagan years, but the movement side with the exception of the Battle of Seattle remains unknown to me.

Just went through the booklet As a Man Thinketh by James Allen (1903), a pioneer of self-help gospel.

<The outer world of circumstance shapes itself to the inner world of thought…
Suffer from racist prejudice around you? Just manifest a non-racist world in your own thoughts. Simple.
<Here is a man who is wretchedly poor. He is extremely anxious that his surroundings and home comforts should be improved, yet all the time he shirks his work, and considers he is justified in trying to deceive his employer on the ground of the insufficiency of his wages. Such a man does not understand the simplest rudiments of those principles which are the basis of true prosperity, and is not only totally unfitted to rise out of his wretchedness, but is actually attracting to himself a still deeper wretchedness by dwelling in, and acting out, indolent, deceptive, and unmanly thoughts.
And so on and so forth. Everything is your own fault/achievement.
<Suffering is always the effect of wrong thought in some direction.
I admit it was I who had the thought of reading this.
<Disease and health, like circumstances, are rooted in thought. Sickly thoughts will express themselves through a sickly body.
Remember this bit of wisdom next time you see a cripple!

James Allen didn't even make it to 50. Probably because he had ugly loser thoughts.

>>19860
Currently reading up on Zapata and the history of Mexican revolution. Very nice book. Absolute clusterfuck of a historical period. Feels like a perfect example of how the Russian revolution would have looked like if there was no organized vanguard.

The starting point of the revolution is essentially the same as in Russia: A westernizing tyrant keeps fucking over the peasants and suppressing the bourgeoisie until the country is in such a deadlock that the whole thing blows up. It results in a peasants revolt, but the revolt keep getting swept up by various liberal reformers promising them the land reforms they want, only to inevitably get fucked over one way or the other. They get more radical as time goes on, but theyre so exclusively concerned with agrarian issues that they cannot really sweep up the rest of the population into their revolution. Zapata was a very impressive leader of the movement, and did the best he could, but was clearly not ideologically and strategically up for the task. You can tell he was uncomfortable dealing with any political issue or diplomatic relation outside of the agrarian concerns of his native province in Morelos.

This month I finished Moby Dick, Fahrenheit 451, snow crash, and a Batman comic collection with the killing joke.


Basically I spent an entire 8 hour work day trying to beat the last boss of silksong and when I finished, instead of pride or accomplishment, I had a coming-to-Jesus moment that if I could do the same 1 minute boss 500 times, I could literally fucking do anything else. So I started reading again from my shelf of 400+ unread books.

>>19860
just started trying getting into philosophy and reading. Im halfway through platos republic right now and i find it really interesting. I just dont know what to read after it

>>25323
Always have a soft spot for Plato, have you read any of the other Platonic dialogues?

They're often separated in early, middle and late dialogues, with the early being ethical discussions close to the historical Socrates, the middle being more Platonic doctrinal works (republic is one of these) while the late tend to be very technical, dialectically subtle explorations of his earlier doctrines.

If you want to continue with Plato, the early dialogues are easiest to get into, the later ones closer to what would later evolve into Hegelian dialectical thinking. Im always blown away by "Parmenides", which i believe was quite important for Hegel as well.

I started writing poetry!
Specifically an biopolitical book about how both animals and humans need to be freed from capitalism.
Also I should say I’m not against hunting, I’m against mass Industrial killings

>>25323
Find a complete works of Plato at a used book store. After republic, if you want something long go with Laws, but mostly there’s about 5 core dialogues everyone talks about whenever someone talks about Plato in conversation. Personally I think reading Plato is for instilling critical thinking, and once you get past that part, move on. Once you’re burnt out on Plato you go to Aristotle, whose writings are his lecture notes, so it’ll be a shock to the system and a bit dry by comparison. While not in his core books about life and logic, my favorite is his book rhetoric.

>>25338
When I was a boy
I asked if I could see a calf
Great uncle obliged with rage in his eyes
Once ripped away from family
In my lap, It licked my cheek
And since I haven’t eaten beef

Finished Condorcet's Sketch for an Historical Picture of the Advances of the Human Mind (1795) in the translation by Jonathan Francis Bennett (2017). His website earlymoderntexts.com got free-as-in-beer texts of several philosophers (Kant, Hume, Hobbes, Bentham…) translated into modern English with more readable layout. I think I'll check out some more stuff on there soon.

Condorcet was a liberal feminist, anti-racist, anti-censorship, and unsurprisingly not a fan of religion. In his final text he tried to give a rundown of all of human history, judging it from a perspective of unchanging "natural law" of equal human rights. IMHO the only interesting part was the "10th era" at the end, his very optimistic speculation about the capitalist future:
-Advances in statistics and insurance mechanism will greatly increase security.
-Broader and faster learning for everyone with charts and a constructed logical science language (bolder than Neurath's Isotypes, it's more like Leibniz).
-With nobility and artificial monopolies abolished, people will have very similar wealth because good and bad luck cancels out long term. (Today we know that's not true empirically, and know it logically-mathematically from econophysics).
-Legal equality of the sexes.
-No more colonialism and no more wars.
-And finally some speculation about people inheriting health/knowledge improvements as in Lamarck.

Nothing new to me since I’ve already read the book, but I still found this to be a helpful guide for understand biology and evolution.

>>22345
Just finished this one. Can't believe it's recommended here. If you have a /g/ schizo background skip it because you already know it's all botnet. Zuboff is a lib appropriating Marxist terminology and concludes the book with a call to "just voot against it" completely ignoring the structure of bourgeois democracy. She spends a chapter glazing Robert Conquest's demonization of the soviet union, and to top it off she scaremongers about China, conflating (now defunct) credit bureaus with every lie about the social credit system.

>>22444
Good summary wish I hadn't wasted my time on the book. I was hoping for concrete analysis, but

my girlfriend is going through Das and i've been going through notes from my old sociology classes to help her understand what marx was waffling about. we were talking about the rate of profit earlier yesterday : )

>>25346
it's a good basis but for a critic of the selfish gene you should read biology as ideology by richard lewontin

Is there a Big Broad Overview of the communist movement in the 21st century?

not sure where the /occult/ thread went, but i was reading about alchemy and found arthur john hopkins' "alchemy" (1934) exquisitely illuminating as to what all of this stuff is about. i first encountered hopkins in a separate article discussing the "colour theory" of the magnum opus (which i independently confirmed in "splendor solis", 1530). the colour theory claims that the progress of the "great work" is the transformation of the base substance into different colours: black, white, yellow, red/violet. hopkins in chapter 6 shows that the "prima materia" in this case is represented by a lead-copper alloy, which is then mixed with silver, then gold and finally, mixed with vinegar. this reddens the "philosopher's stone". in splendor solis, the movement from the "black sun" to the "red-golden" sun shows this very process. hopkins' ultimate theory is that while alchemy has its ancient roots in egypt (e.g. thoth), its codefication is ultimately alexandrian (greco-egyptian) by the way of the philosophers, including plato, aristotle and (pseudo-)democritus, such as in his "four books" (the oldest alchemical manuscript extant). aristotle gets a lot of credit ultimately, such as in his attribution of "secretum secretorum" (which includes "the emerald tablet" attached to it), but this is an arabic forgery. as hopkins also shows, alchemy comes to western europe by way of arabia (e.g. geber)… we can also see the colour theory here (De Alchimia Opuscula Complura Veterum Philosophorum, 1550) where the person is composed of four sections (black, white, yellow, red) holding the 3 dragons (i.e. solis splendor, 1530).

more on alchemy:
apparently, it was jabir ibn hayyan (721-815 A.D.) that first defined the principles of sulphur and mercury as the "white" and "red" elixirs (t. "summa perfectionis") to which all phenomena corresponded (e.g. the four elements corresponded to the two principles), with suphur being a mixture of fire/earth and mercury being a mixture of water/air. only later do we have paracelsus in "opus paramirum" (1530) introduce the third principle of "salt", thus completing the understanding we have today between salt, mercury and sulphur. so then, we can say that while alchemy has its pre-history, it is only really completed in the 16th century by the establishment of the "tria prima".

Not reading anything right now but having a deep personal crisis about what I believe. I was a /pol/ regular for a long time but certain things in life have changed my perspective a bit.

>>25443
(comr8 anon is reading themself.)

>>25444
The biggest book I need to read is me.

Have a hard time reading due to my lazy eye but I downloaded a copy of Zizeks "Christian Atheism" today. Always struggled with the religion, it drives me to mental illness occasionally, but I have to dig deeper to find the answer I'm looking for

Finished The Invention of the Land of Israel by Shlomo Sand (2012). I knew there was a Sand book about the genesis of Judaism and this one and felt I had to read at least one of them, and thought this one to be the shorter read. Zionism only really got going in the late 19th century, so… But this book goes back as far as historical records permit. He historicizes (spellchecker says this isn't a word) everything. I thought I could read this to own Zionists online, and while that's true, it makes you wonder how much historians of other nations contribute to myth building by artful juxtaposition and omission. Compelling prose. Can hardly believe this wasn't in English originally.

>>25443
what specifically are you doubting?

Reading *Religion in Human Evolution* by Robert Bellah (among two other massive tomes) and discussing the content with some friends of mine as of late.
The book goes into what psychological processes contribute to how people make sense of the world through religious narrative, so its been exceptionally insightful. It's drawn from a lot of sources that my friends are more familiar with as well, so plenty to converse over.

>>25508
anarkiddie with an evopsych fetish, what an absolute classic

>>25508
here's what people have said about religion:

homer and hesiod: the gods are in conflict
plato: religion is a noble lie
epicurus: the gods are inherently finite
Jesus: God is love
eckhart: God is emptiness
luther: reason is the enemy of faith
calvin: man cannot justify himself
paine: christianity is atheism
feuerbach: christianity is humanism
marx: money is man's real god
engels: socialism is practical christianity
weber: capitalism is protestant
nietzsche: morality is an inversion of virtue
crowley and blavatsky: religion is science
freud: religious prohibition governs society
bataille: religion is sacrifice
becker: religion obscures death
paglia: sublimity is queer
graeber and hudson: sin is debt
zizek: God is immanent, not transcendent
mcgowan: sublimity is emptiness

>>25514
What have people said about the phenomena of religion? That's what's more relevant to what I'm reading, though I understand the philogeny you're describing is important as well.

>>25521
*history of philosophy, not philogeny.

>>25521
i have written about the rather recent invention of religion here:
>>25451
>>25472
>>25480
all the abrahamic faiths appear to emerge from military conflict; judaism comes in 167 B.C. with the hasmonean uprising. christianity emerges with the fall of the second temple in jerusalem in 70 A.D. and islam first appears historically with arabian conquests in the 7th century. religion here is a tool of unification, the same way plato pairs the two noble lies of religion and class society (e.g. "the myth of metals") as a way to have unity in society. religion understood sociologically is then a means for ruling classes to command authority.

as far as superstition and the like is concerned, freud in "totem and taboo" (with inspiration from anthropologist james frazer) attempts to show that religion begins at the dawn of civilisation by the repression of desire (e.g. the prohibition of incest). mythology, he contends, is based in this original struggle. he says for example that cronos was the "primal father" who monopolises women, and who is usurpsed by his sons, who invent monogamy (e.g. zeus castrating cronos). the invention of monogamy is what regulates sexuality, allowing sublimation. frazer sees religion begin after superstition (or "magic"), where the magician was a type of scientist. the "rain dance" as a form of "sympathetic magic" imitates nature so as to invoke these powers (another example is using a stone fish to imitate fish swimming to the shore); a sort of dream logic. religion begins later, where nature is no longer under our influence, but must be appealed to, particularly by sacrifice. thus, religion and sacrificial ritual are the same thing to frazer, as it is to bataille also.

graeber and hudson locate the origins of religion in debt, or obligation. this does not arise at any particular time, but begins in any complex form of society. hudson for example sees how temples operated as the first banks, recording everyone's debts to one another, where on certain ritual days, the debts would be cleared and a new cycle would begin (typically following the sun cycle). its clear to see sin as "debt" literally and figuratively. the "forgiveness of sins" is thus an economic plea to release slaves from bondage.

nietzsche sees religion begin by the priestcraft, who are weaker in body but stronger in mind. he says that the natural man has no concept of morality, but only of virtue (what nietzsche philologically traces back to "strength"). the priest thus invents morality (or rather, he invents "evil") as a way to give himself more power. this can be summed up by Jesus' saying, "the meek shall inherit the earth". all sin is what feels good to "the flesh", yet the priest says the flesh is evil. so then, morality is essentially against our instincts - its this denial of instinct, this denial of reality, which he sees as bringing religion into being.

marx and engels might see religion begin with the alienation of labour, causing man to be externalised from himself. this is feuerbach's hegelian interpretation, and marx develops it economically, where money becomes man's idol, and so he worships himself (i.e. his labour) indirectly. thus marx says that atheism is the prerequisite for communism, or self-directed humanism (e.g. humanity in-and-for-itself).

Finished Denial by Ajit Varki (2013), developing an idea proposed to him by Danny Brower (who died in 2007). Their claim is this:
Strong self-awareness / theory of mind is present in humans only because of a lucky co-evolution of another aspect of the human mind, denial of death. So, without death denial, strong self-awareness would lead to depression and inaction (thus not passing on your genes). They speculate that other species did not get strong self-awareness because of that barrier.

Maybe I missed something, but my impression is they failed to make an argument for their assertion (not even a good argument, just an argument). We probably all know of people who got really busy getting things in order when they got news of their impeding death instead of freezing up, and I'm pretty sure that this is indeed the more common behavior. Just like when we become aware of being near a less dramatic limit (deadline for a paper, last day of your vacation and so on).

Ancient artifacts from elaborate burial rituals are used as an example by Varki (as by many others) as signs of when self-awareness evolved. A great opportunity to point at this as a sign of reality denial, but somehow that does not occur to Varki.

The dumbest thing is his speculation about why there wasn't more interbreeding between homo sapiens and others. He posits MENTAL incompatibility specifically for the low fertility of interbreeding couples.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-and-neanderthals-may-have-had-trouble-making-male-babies-180958701/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-neanderthal-gene-variant-related-to-red-blood-cells-may-have-contributed-to-their-extinction-180987586/
Yeah OK, the book is older than these findings, but what a stupid hypothesis. Mein Gott, has he ever observed some couples?? There are people who seek relief by fucking horses.