You’re right, that comparison is incongruent. And looking at it again, I can understand the dad’s reaction. It just struck me as funny that he said “almost hit” and then that the kid was two rooms away.

I see your point, it is fucked and if I were him, I’d probably be just as outraged about the risk to my child.

Respectfully, I don’t think that’s how I would react emotionally/psychologically. I’m sure I’m not alone here. I’m a lucky guy, but what’s the chance of space debris hitting my house twice at different times?

“It almost hit my son. He was two rooms over and heard it all,”

I mean, relative to coming from space I guess it almost hit his son. How does he feel about every car he drives past on a two lane road? “Oh shoot! Almost collided with that one too!”

There are things in those books that are demonstrably true, but that doesn’t necessarily prove everything in them just as those things that are demonstrably false don’t necessarily disprove everything in them.

It’s just a matter of not being able to observe, measure, or physically test a god’s existence. From an objective standpoint, believing whether a god exists or not is still just a belief.

I’m only trying to show how a scientific person could compartmentalize their beliefs from their studies and to that end, I think we agree that they aren’t incompatible. What someone chooses to believe after that is up to them, because as you point out, there’s no peer reviewed published evidence one way or another.

The big difference is that many religious beliefs can’t be tested. They are just believed in faith. In science, nothing is believed. It’s all evidence based and tested. A scientist doesn’t have to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific ways because their beliefs are outside the realm of the scientific method. They accept that they don’t have a way to measure or test those things.

They have for a long time. I seem to remember the DEA commissioning studies that they would later have to get approval to officially ignore because they didn’t like the outcome, multiple times. They would use highly reputable research centers and then drag their names through the mud. War on drugs is a profit and power generator.

Thanks PipedLinkBot!

Is it good?? While that may depend on your buzz, take the word of two remarkable chefs, Sean Brock and Anthony Bourdain: https://youtu.be/qEpXeTDwbk8

I see what you’re saying

How does this limit a corporation from doing the same thing?

So a hedge fund doesn’t do it, but a specific company does the same thing and that’s fine. What am I missing?

What’s your understanding of “sovereign citizen”? Asking in good faith.

I mean, we have Amish in the US. That’s a kind of sovereign citizen, right?

What rational argument is there for citizens to lose their right to vote?

Say you lose your right to vote over possession of drugs. Why? You shouldn’t you have representation?

While in prison you become slave labor. For profit prisons get money for housing and feeding you. They get money from the contracted work you do. They double and triple dip profits. There’s all kinds of under the table deals being done on your back. But why did you lose your right to vote? It all goes back to controlling certain groups of the population. That’s where it started, that’s where it still is. Sure, restrict gun ownership for felons, that’s a constitutional right that has long needed overhaul for so many reasons, but the right to vote, why??

Lighten up. This is no way to have a productive discussion. If you aren’t in the mood, then maybe you shouldn’t be commenting right now. Take a breather. We all have bad days. Hope you feel better.

This feels like you’re a bit defensive about your understanding of the subject. Somehow you’ve been led to believe that this affects every kid not in public school. That’s demonstrably false.

I’m not in favor of the voucher programs, but you’re diluting the opposition to them by claiming some incredibly misinformed bullshit. Just seems funny that we’re talking about education systems, and yours seems to have failed you.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves

Don’t let movies do your thinking for you. This is an effective eradication method that has been used successfully for many years.

That’s right, there’s is a process. You can’t just bury people without reporting the death and going through some sort of process. That’s a good bit different from an actual natural burial even if at face value he did bury her naturally lol. That’s wild. I’ve heard of that happening in my region in the southern Appalachians too.

First of all, sorry to hear what you’re going through.

In regards to natural burial, my understanding is that it’s more legal than not, just that there’s regulations depending on where you live. It’s very rare that embalming is required by law. Burial vaults are typically required when embalming fluids are used to slow the spread of the fluids to waterways. Neither of these are considered part of a natural burial.

There’s a lot smoke and mirrors in the funeral industry that has led to wide misconceptions and outright misinformation. I asked if you were sure because the points you made are generally what a traditional burial funeral home would tell a client to steer them more towards their products. It’s awful that it’s become common for funeral homes to prey on those that are grieving. Absolutely despicable.

I hope y’all find a way that honors your grandpa without causing additional stress.

Are you sure natural burial is illegal?