A Tripolation

There really *isn't* that much of a negative impact so long as the fertilizer is applied properly. You don't spread it when it might rain, because a hard rain will lead to runoff, which is slightly harmful, and a waste of money. And most fertilizer is either nitrogen or lime or things like that...which I don't see as being too incredibly harmful. But that's just what I think, I'm no chem expert. Modern fertilizers are actually quite safe, and most farmers/groundskeepers understand how to apply them safely.

No sane theist I know would have ever let anything go that far. So I call BS on your statement, which is just your opinion, and not a fact. No normal christian honestly believes in such tangible intervention, and thus, wouldn't let a woman starve her kids. And I was simply saying that your "she got away" was wrong. If it's such a cheap point then maybe you should try and clarify next time. But IIRC, getting CAUGHT and going to JAIL is NOT getting away with it. And if anything, she won't go to jail due to an insanity plea, not because of religion. Oh dam. "..." is the one logic structure I can't counter. Props on that awesome display right there.

Oh...I guess I must read English differently than you...I could've sworn that the woman was facing up to 10 years for each account of neglect...but that can't be true because she got away with it.

I actually don't think it is. It's different than most spam types. And anyone who's ever been to youtube is aware of lockerz and its spam bots.

Ah, excellent point Capn.

Because she obviously has issues that are not the result of being religious. Are you really going to blame the thing she uses as an excuse and not her? If that's true, why stop there? Why not blame her parents for ever procreating in the first place? Why not place blame on every process that turned her into what she is? That sort of recursive blame is ridiculous, and that is how I rationalize that your claim is shallow and vapid. Blame the person that shot the gun, not the gun. I did, and I apologize. But it seems to me they are punishing her regardless of her claim to religion. That's your opinion, and almost wholly false nowadays. Why is it religion's fault that man skews what religion says and justifies their violence and hatred based on the misinterpretation of religion?

There's the answer to your question right there. If religion did not exist, nutjobs like this would find other excuses to not take care of their children. Blaming it on religion is a shallow, vapid claim. I'm also curious as to what kind of 16 and 18 year-olds watch their siblings starve to death. Most people have a job by the time they are fifteen, and/or the competence to find one or obtain government aid.

Way to make me not feel special. I always suspected that they were more common, but never knew the reason, and couldn't be bothered to google. Thanks IA.

I live near one of the only two spots in the world where you can see a moonbow (or so I'm told). It's in Kentucky, next to my hometown. I don't know why I've never been to see it...

Carter, I've been looking at Green's Theorem for about 3 hours now, and I gotta say, your motto ain't helping. But maybe you were talking about people who are good at math initially.

How about whenever the news gets scientists to basically reiterate what the media is "sensationalizing"? The news talks about this study and the ramification, and then they march on about 3 guys with advanced degrees in the topic field and get them to explain why this study is the end-all to the topic at hand. Shouldn't those scientists be saying stuff to the contrary instead of just nodding along and allowing the media to misconstrue their findings?

First occupation I remember wanting to be was an engineer. And that's what I'm majoring in. Granted, I thought the engineers were the guys that drove the huge dump trucks and used the cranes, but hey, still a funny coincidence.

Well, I kinda see his point, and I for one blame the scientists to some extent. They LET their claims be mangled, as their inaction is just the same as an allowance. Come off it people, do you REALLY expect the average person (of which I consider myself to be) to go around digging up the research to verify EVERY claim that is based off of scientific studies? And then, do you expect them to take the time to study the science BEHIND each research? Like nec209, I hear almost every day on the news about how scientific studies are contradicting each other (mostly the medicinal ones). Do you all expect me to go and get a pre-med degree, read up on the latest pharmacuetical techniques in drug manufacturing, and get a degree in biochemistry? I've looked at medical journals, and that seems to be what it would take for me to make a rational claim on whether or not such and such treatment has been wrong for 20 years. Aren't us lowly consumers entitled to some truth without having to spend years researching every dam claim made by scientific studies?

And like has been said, such is the problem with us searching for life. How do we define life? Do we base it on the preordained axioms of what we classify as life on Earth? How can we do that responsibly? But if we don't base it on SOME standards, then how are we ever going to be able to carry out tests and search for life? Human babies are not able to continue their existence alone. They are unable to find food, water, shelter, and other things many organisms need to survive...does that mean they are not alive?

Really Mr Skeptic? We're not allowed to talk about overthrowing the president? I mean, yeah, right now, that's crazy talk, but what about the time when that talk isn't crazy?

Same as always. Brutal hot humid summer, cold bitter winters.

Google Wave looks kinda lame imo. Granted, I don't really know what it does...but still...lame.

I think he's trying to say that the EVENT of 1 not occurring is 50/50, as a one is either rolled, or it isn't. This, of course, shows an ignorance of how probability works, but I can see how he would be confused if he chose to look at it that way. Hopefully someone else can explain *why* that's not a 50/50 scenario...if I tried I'm pretty sure it would end with something like "...and that's why woodpeckers react violently to thrown cell phones".

Another person trying to cover up the truth with LIES. Haven't you ever heard of glow-plugs? That's another analogy about the whole LHC mess. People misconstrue what the experts say...namely because they don't understand the experts. Here, glow-plugs [math]\ne[/math] spark plugs, even though they are similar. Same with black holes and micro black holes. Sorry if this just made everything more confusing, or that I'm completely wrong.

Your momma.

I reported this post, as it commits all known logical fallacies, and as such, has no place in this forum. And I can only assume that mooey was made a mod due to combination of her pure awesome and ninja-like assassinations of any arguments employing faulty logic.

No thanks Phi, I don't need calcium supplements yet. And tree...that's crazy. Take a flashlight next time.

Ha, I run barefoot, like a real man. And you're an old person Phi, sure you wanna do this?

Wow, thanks for inviting me guys. I don't like running around like a crazy person or anything.

I'm trying to get through T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" (as a challenge) and for my for-fun-reading, I started on Clive Barker's The Thief of Always. Next on my list is The Venetian Betrayal, and I so just chose it because of its title. IRC Edit: I hate you Capn. Mute that.