divagreen

I don't mean to be a sh1t stirrer... But I have always felt that transparent processing is a good thing. I found this in another thread, that was closed: Uhm...I didn't know that Scruffy or Azurephoenix had mod privileges...or Insane_alien for that matter... I really don't care, but I think that it is nice to have it all out in the open, ya know?

***Prayer to the gawds of logic... Please forgive any hyperbolic rhetoric that I am about to speak here, and future posts regarding this thread...if it applies... Please forgive any conflation of topics that do not correlate to an anecdotal analogy...if it applies... I will endeavor to hold the highest of standards while arguing this case...please forgive me if I don't always measure up...if it applies. And if any transgressions occur, I solemnly swear to read Alice in Wonderland once again, in order to mainstay my knowledge of what logical fallacies look like.*** This is a weak argument if taken at a legislative value. She wanted them to die, she understood that they would die, she stood by while they died, ...this is depraved indifference if one wants to dispense with the low IQ and manipulation factor. True dat...but wouldn't you think that the deciding factor for allowable kink would be held in the hands of the two men who performed? They did have to rise to the occasion.

I invite you to re-examine the last two statements through the lens of the knowledge that the woman had an IQ of 72, and people of lower intelligence (the woman was two IQ points above what would be considered mentally retarded) are more easily manipulated...they have a hard time thinking things through as applied to abstract thought, which includes fully comprehending the consequences. Sex with what most people would consider an unattractive 51 year-old woman when the two men who actually did the killings were in their late twenties, seems a tad far-fetched to me when one is considering "allure" as one of the motivating factors for the two men to have committed the crime in the first place. I think that it was mostly about money. I think that the woman was either high on painkillers or drunk when she agreed to it and combined with her low IQ, it made her an easy target for two other people to step in and manipulate her into agreeing to a crime that she could not fully comprehend the ramifications of such. I am enjoying discussion, though. Thank you to the posters who have replied.

I think that you are providing a gender bias research base by leaving out the attractive men. I also think that as long as vials are being collected, one might as well test for hygiene to find out whether or not the bartenders are actually cleaning the glassware rather than just dunking them in water like it looks like they are doing.

Thank you for opining! I believe my original question was open ended..."what do you guys think?" Her alleged crime was for masterminding...with a 72 IQ...do you not see the discrepancy with this allegation? 72 is 2 points above mental retardation and a handicap. I think that the other two perpetrators' sentencing holds relevance in order to keep perspective as to why she was sentenced to a death penalty in the first place. I think that the death penalty was misappropriated in this situation.

I think the reason it does not always show up in tests is because it has something to do with the half-life of the drug in question (pharmacology was an awfully long time ago). I think that the drug will only test positive for a certain amount of time, mostly when the victim is unconscious, hence, it's effectiveness and lack of detection. I am sure someone who has more knowledge about chemistry and/or pharmacology can elaborate.

Organs don't even transplant 100% successfully between humans (blood type plays a big factor, as well as how many antigens a person may have in their blood) so I am not sure why the theory of evolution needs to rest on organs from apes being successfully transplanted to humans.

Poe's law does not apply to Steve Colbert? Seriously? Try the first one. A list of examples for Poe's Law. And there is this: With much respect, I was responding to Lemur's inquiry as to whether or not there was a respectful engagement of dialogue. By pointing out that it is a Poe, I was trying to, A) let Lemur or any other poster know that Stephen Colbert, was not in fact, a right wing conservative and B) try to direct as to why he would take such a position in the first place

While the two people who actually performed the crime received life sentences? One of the killers actually confessed that they had manipulated the woman into an agreement of the crime...why is the death penalty applied in this case only unilateral?

By his actions I surmise. And I am not trying to imply that Stephen Colbert is "a deep down inside" staunch conservative...he is playing an over the top conservative in order to parody the current political climate of the extreme right's style of engagement. I think it is brilliant.

Stephen Colbert is playing a Poe.

Another article So how was she the "mastermind"? Hmmm...

I came across this article, and found it disturbing... Article Anybody with an IQ below 70 may not be executed, but this woman with an IQ of 72 was...in fact she was the alleged "mastermind" behind the crime . What do you guys think?

I did listen and don't you find it interesting that someone who first started off as the Reaganonmics love child for global economic order turned into such a pain in the arse economist? I did not catch the first article, but the second one was pretty good, thank you.

Pfft. NC made it illegal to smoke in most public places in January 2010. RJ Reynolds has been downsized and demoralized due to the popular bent of environmental sympathies. (Think of the local tobacco farmers as far as an inquiry into the local economy and the impact of such.) So no more economic smokescreens, so to speak, haha. Big trucks? Is that your argument? There are emissions control on vehicles and factories, however an allowance seems to be made for the grandfathering clause, which is a biggey, but that has been in use less and less, as systemic maintenance requires further renovation. Kind of what they are doing on the borders...

Was Dawkins being dismissive or cruel with this response? I am curious as to what other people think.

Oh hush, even though I am a lurker and mostly just read the posts on this site, I still enjoy it immensely. Don't be so grumpy. /end personal reply I wonder what Joseph Stiglitz thinks about the current tax cut debate. Wondering if anybody knows who he is and where a lot of this comes from...

I imagine that the increase in the field of accounting and tax auditing must be consistently exponential.

Question...are you proposing a decentralized governmental system that falls under global law with regards to an agreed upon terms of human rights? I might be able to get behind that... My first thought is how would the economics work since there is such a variance upon cultural financial accruement.

First, if you look up the antonym for gnostic, you will find the counter "agnostic". So I think I used the term correctly within the context (please do note the small "g"). link I find it interesting that a word ("agnostic") that has only been coined in the last 150 years has been conflated with a Christian sect (Gnostic) of a couple of thousand of years ago. The wiki site that you sourced was an assignment of a philosophy not a definition. Let's have a chart: This is why I request that this thread be genuinely considered as an epistemological inquiry into the terms that we use but do not necessarily agree upon. I think that atheism can be consistent with pantheism. (Thank you, Mr. Skeptic for responding. )

I see it...thank you!

Can we have a "jump to: /insert forum here" somewhere on the page? I see a thread search but not a "jump to" section that would enable the user to navigate the forums without having to jump to the main forum page...it would be a time saver.

There are some terms that are used in the religious forum that I think need clarification in order to facilitate better communication. Theism, ...believes in a supernatural moral agent/creator. Atheism, ...does not believe in a supernatural moral agent/creator. Pantheism, ...does not believe in a supernatural moral agent/creator but rather believes that "god" is in everything and composites the Universe. Gnosticism, ...claims we can know whether god exists or not. Agnosticism, ...claims we can not know whether god exists or not. So when we use these terms what do we mean? And what do we mean by "god"? If the term "god" is defined by what we revere, is there not a fluidity in the conceptional view?

Blimey, Jimmy...slagging off on the Yanks? Here is an asshat: And when you can be arsed enough will you please explain to me the etymological properties of "munter", "eegit" and "bint"? And how they compare to the American synonyms?

Let us go ahead and name the fallacy...ad populum. And many people use it. After all...so many people can't be wrong can they? This is an appeal to ridicule...just as fallacious. I understand the original intent of the argument, but purple unicorns are clearly a figment of the person who is arguing against the concept of "god"'s imagination and should not be in the same category as "god" within the context of this discussion, considering nobody has made the case for a pantheistic view of "god". Really, I think we should first discuss the semantics of the term "god" before engaging in any form of discussion about "god", that way we can make sure we are talking about "god" and not about religion. Two entirely different things, IMO.