People died in 1976 from a vaccine = Don't get vaccinated.

People died from seeing their doctors in 1776 = Don't see your doctor.

People died in 1986 from wearing their seat belts = Don't wear your seat belt.

People died in 1966 from fires caused by heating their houses = Don't heat your house

People died in 1996 wearing their seat belts = Don't wear your seat belt.

People died in 2006 from getting exercise = Don't exercise.

Can you see a problem with this logic? In each of these cases MORE people lived from doing these things than died. It's a statistics game, yes a few people will die from the very thing that's meant to save their lives but in all of these cases the people who DIE from taking the safety measures are far fewer than those who die from avoiding the safety measures.

This is just ridiculous, it's this anti-intellectual backlash going on in the United States. The Democratization of thinking, "Just because I'm an idiot with no education doesn't mean my opinions have less value than an educated intelligent person talking on the subject of their expertise!"

I blame the internet, allowing any old joe moron on here, what happened to the good old days when you used to have to LEARN how to hook your computer up and mostly only smart people HAD computers at home.

>Sigh< I miss those days...

Human life is sacred doctor, now die!

Disgusting.

Ah, the ever so lovely and respectful Nancy Grace.

>> ^EDD:
Surprising and sad. It's really short though, I wonder what the general context was and also what he followed that up with..?
Anyway, I hope the day arrives soon, well within my lifetime, when scientific method and resultant fact aren't feared and disputed as something contradicting the idea of a creator. It's just plain wrong to compare the two, because science doesn't claim to have an answer to this particular question (yet) as it's based on the set of laws that just didn't exist before the beginning of time (the Big Bang). The laws and rules of our existence are indisputably set and they're here whether we like them or not; by defying them (imagining the occasional 'miracles' and expecting divine interventions) and defying the need to study and understand these laws, one is hindering our progress as a civilization - usually because one is accustomed to and wants to maintain the current status quo (i.e. they're well off) and is afraid (or purposefully intimidated) of change.
All the ancient nonsense that was made up to "explain" the unknown should and probably will eventually be discarded just like the heliocentric model was accepted by (the majority of) the sane world, and all that would remain afterwards would be folks that have been made believe via indoctrination. And when we'll finally be rid of this final despicable abusive parenting malpractice (and I do believe there will come such a day), we will have freed ourselves from one of the most oppressive shackles in our species' history.
Now there's a day full of tears of joy I am so looking forward to!


Except science doesn't deal with the main element of the question people pose with life. Science doesn't deal with truth, only observed trends which can't even be called facts as far as I would define a fact. A fact is a certainty, and I define certainty as perfect knowledge that is total security from error. This can never be achived with sceince as it deals with percived phenomina and not noumenon. Kant was the one who ended up saying that the limmits of reason open up the doorway to faith.

I am not an saying science is useless or anything, it got us to the moon, and other neato things. But it doesn't ever have a claim to truth, or as you would put it facts.

Moreover, the more we learn about the the "laws" that govern all that is around us, we find that it has no certainty in the quantum relm at all. Things do not play by any set of rules, and indeed, it seems random in nature. Thus overuling any model that could say with true certainty that it had discovered the facts of the univerce. The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false.

Might I remind you that sciece doesn't even have a proper explanation for gravity or even more simple, mass and how it is created. Moreover, those are things that are the basis for all other things built on top of them and yet they go unanswered. Science is the new abuse in it scope of what it says it has answers to and the relm of life that it holds to have answers for.

once again I'm all for science, being a scientist myself (as my frequent mispellings should indicate ), but it will never replace the faith element by Kants own admissions. (I view Kant as the father of empirical thinking, but there are others like hegal and hidigar that point out some of the main problems with the limmits of reason)

edit, or ya, and on topic for this movie, his views on evolution shouldn't have anything to do with his revolutionary ideas on getting back to the small government topology. Completely irrelvant just as what his faith is or isn't. Unless now anyone accociated with faith is now automatically a moron; in which I find to be an very bigoted way of thinking and not conforming to the so called tolorance that I keep hearing people claim should be the order of the day.

Surprising and sad. It's really short though, I wonder what the general context was and also what he followed that up with..?

Anyway, I hope the day arrives soon, well within my lifetime, when scientific method and resultant fact aren't feared and disputed as something contradicting the idea of a creator. It's just plain wrong to compare the two, because science doesn't claim to have an answer to this particular question (yet) as it's based on the set of laws that just didn't exist before the beginning of time (the Big Bang). The laws and rules of our existence are indisputably set and they're here whether we like them or not; by defying them (imagining the occasional 'miracles' and expecting divine interventions) and defying the need to study and understand these laws, one is hindering our progress as a civilization - usually because one is accustomed to and wants to maintain the current status quo (i.e. they're well off) and is afraid (or purposefully intimidated) of change.

All the ancient nonsense that was made up to "explain" the unknown should and probably will eventually be discarded just like the heliocentric model was accepted by (the majority of) the sane world, and all that would remain afterwards would be folks that have been made believe via indoctrination. And when we'll finally be rid of this final despicable abusive parenting malpractice (and I do believe there will come such a day), we will have freed ourselves from one of the most oppressive shackles in our species' history.
Now there's a day full of tears of joy I am so looking forward to!

I can't believe I upvoted old Pumpkinhead, but then I did upvote Nancy Grace one time too. Geez, who will I upvote next? Sean Hannity?

>> ^grahamslam:

Suspending rational belief, despite having far off relatives request that you seek medical attention is more then ignorance, it's willful ignorance which leads to death. Children are wards, not property, they can not be disposed of at will. Parents have a, perfectly reasonable, legal obligation to do what a reasonable person would do to promote and protect the wellbeing of their children. If these people didn't do that, then leaving their other children with them is the criminal negligence of the rest of society as well.

If you don't think the government has any place defending peoples right to not be killed, what exactly is it's function?

>> ^YouMakeKittyMad:
how is nancy grace's personality inspiring greater indignation than this story?


Possibly because although the story is horrific, between school shootings and political unrest and war overseas, we have become accustomed to horror. We want a way to overcome horror, we want others to show us how to become greater than ourselves, and we want rise to the challenges. When instead we see people confronted with horror abandoning their duty and telling others what to believe instead of trusting them to make their own decisions, it makes us extremely angry.

My two cents, anyways. If I had my bronze star, I would have downvoted this; although the story is horrible, the reporting is sickening and should not be encouraged. There are other news outlets that broke this story, and did so more responsibly.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Upvote, even though I can't stand that nitwit Nancy Grace.

Amen, brotha! Seriously, does she really need to act like such a beeyotch to everyone? Even people on her own team?