five minutes later, you get five different stories as to exactly what happened.

yet, I am supposed to believe what a bunch of people wrote thousands of years ago in ancient languages over events that may have spooked them?

AND the documents are put together by affluent elites with an agenda in opposition to the populace?

Think about how twisted, despicable, selfish, criminal and cruel are the goings on today among the wealthy. This, in a day and age of supposed transparency.

Imagine how much more twisted and belligerent would be the motives of the elites millenia ago, when the peasants looked like they might pillage and overthrow the elite HQs any given moment.

Today, lots of things are left out of the public records. For instance, what WERE those secret energy meetings about? How were they connected to 9/11 and the Saudis and bin Laden and Exxon? This is but one small example. Multiple it by all the elite interests you can imagine.

But the Bible is 'GOSPEL'. Show me what they LEFT OUT.

But the federal government got in the car business a long time ago, when it started designing cars. Bumpers, seat belts, headrests, headlights, emissions, mileage, crashworthiness. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm no mewling leftie, but even I see the problem with the auto industry producing dangerously unregulated cars.

No headlights? c'mon. You look even worse than before.

to find out I am one of only 1-2% of the US population that never watches teevee.

of those that do not, a good proportion are 'hippie granolas' and 'fundamentalists' of which I am neither, which makes me an even more marginalized individual.

I guess what had always shocked me is that the AVERAGE number of hours of teevee watched by Americans is THREE HOURS a night.

The article said those who did not watch teevee had interesting lives, spending their now free time doing the things the other people WATCH others doing on teevee.

When I say academia, MEN AND WOMEN, is biased against males, this is another textbook example.

"Humanity's jaunt into monotheism, agriculturally based economies and the monopolization of power and resources by a few men was 'unnatural' in many ways," Dr. Schmitt says, alluding to evidence that hunter-gatherers were relatively egalitarian. "In some ways modern progressive cultures are returning us psychologically to our hunter-gatherer roots," he argues. “That means high sociopolitical gender equality over all, but with men and women expressing predisposed interests in different domains. Removing the stresses of traditional agricultural societies could allow men's, and to a lesser extent women's, more 'natural' personality traits to emerge."

So pre-agricultural societies were MORE egalitarian or fair with more distributed power? Makes no sense.

'Power' is not that simple. A few have always been leaders. Typically by common agreement. A despot does not last long, unless that despot is the only alternative. Often, he or she is eventually taken down.

Powerful society feeds the needs of its wealthy peers, and the needs of the noisemakers, typically the society of women. If the society of women wants to have all rapists shuttered, they are shuttered, for instance.

So the power structure's concerns largely reflect the priorities of their pertinent societies.

The statement that hunter gatherers were egalitarian directly contradicts feminist theory that hunters attacked and destroyed matriachal lineage societies. So which is it?

If we are returning to hunter gatherer roots, what were we a few centuries ago when feminists argued things were NOT egalitarian or progressive?

I like how the so called academician had a prejudice that all men are prone to being jerky and uncaring, so he led the argument to that point.

I would argue the opposite, that men are typically MORE caring than are women. Men on the street will help someone in need more readily. Another indicative example: men tend to be more polite and kind to exotic dancers than are women, who tend to be cruel, brutal and out of control towards male dancers. One can also argue that women only seem to be caring and generous towards those things in their lives that drive their egos-- namely raising their personal offspring. Women are invested in proving they are good moms to others, so they work at it. There is little compassion to this, the ego instead is driving the behavior.

my post must have been boring.

no response to it.

too bad, I thought I had a good argument...