listening to Judy Garrock records and smokin’ his winstons..
Do I go with this:
The way the archaeologists "believe they have discovered" and "highly unlikely . . . it was a mistake" and "far more likely" but the journalist turns that into the definitive "First Homosexual Caveman FOUND!" by the time the headline's written?
Do I go with:
The way the archaeologists say "well, we haven't seen this before, so let's think of our options. A period when men were buried with jugs? No. Maybe the direction of burial wasn't that important? Nope. Maybe criminals or bad guys were buried this way to rob them of their manhood? Nope. Wait! I've got it. Listen up: He was . . . transgendered or gay! That's the only academically sound answer."
Or, do I go with the cheap shots:
Gotta be transgendered. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble both wore dresses.
Gay, perhaps. But I'll bet he had the best-decorated cave in the neighborhood.
A cruel twist of nature's fate; gay, yet born before Judy Garland records.
'Corded War culture'? Thank goodness. No self-respecting gay caveman would show his face during the Tupperware culture.
listening to Judy Garrock records and smokin’ his winstons..
Come on, man!
They try too hard to spread the fable. Like the book of Hebrews says, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
If they buried him as a woman then that is a statement that he was not a normal man.
And the normal men would not be happy to have the homosexual buried with them.
Journalist shows his gay agenda,no big deal most are anyway.
"He was gay alright, he helped me decorate my first cave".
Creating the definitive from the vague is their specialty.
They likely haven’ discovered enough graves to know anything statistically valid, just a few anecdotal findings, from which absolutes are hypothesized. Then that hypothesis is presented as a fact.
The underlying problem with archaeologists is a need to pretend that they actually know concrete things, when a dozen or more alternative explanations always exist. After 20 years, these pseudo facts become the concrete basis for even more fanciful ideas based on deductive logic of “if A+B=C then Cx32= 564. All without any real proof of what A and B were.
Archaeologists have a natural urge to play “if you accept my wild theory, then I'll accept yours”, because otherwise they are just an un-unified field of guessers, who can't really ever say much of anything to answer the question “Why?”. In this case, it could be any number of things. A slave, a mistake, direction based eye color versus sex, etc.
This is really, really exciting.
Michelle can finally drop the masquerade.
So easy a caveman could do him.
Interesting find. Ridiculous conclusions.
Must have had fossilized bowels?
Did they find a gerbil skeleton in the pelvis?
Homo Erectus?
These people have become great spinners of political yarns for propaganda purposes. It’s gotten so pervasive that I’ve taken to calling it political science.
They have skeletal remains buried with certain articles that have been known to indicate that the deceased was regarded as female. I presume genetic testing indicates the presence of the Y chromosome. There are several birth defects or genetic disorders that would have caused this individual to present outwardly as female from birth.
That is the assumption that is most likely, given the absence of other indications. But, noooo, it doesn’t further any modern-day leftist groupthink agendas. So, we get this fantastical tale of homosexual cavemen.
And here is a more recent homosexual caveman:
Another one? This is like the 3rd one in as many days. Becoming an epidemic.
More postmortem Sodomite discoveries when the deceased can’t defend themselves.
Those who practice perversion love to hijack history in order to justify their filth...see Abraham Lincoln, Michael Angelo and Jesus Christ himself.
Wondering is one thing, making statements of probability is another.
'twould be a great thing if scientists and politicians alike would hold true to the principles that they claim to hold so dear.