Search results

It's like Dostoevsky took a murderer and showed how even "minor" sins led to the same end. It's difficult to say as well as convey. It's like he put the man who would say "but I never killed anyone" into the shoes of a murderer. Does that make sense?

Evidence. The laptop, obviously.

Not sure I can. It was like looking into the abyss.

There was a short story by Stephen King called Dolan's Cadillac. It's hard to describe, but it reminded me of Raskalnikov.

Genesis 50:20

Philistine. :D Wait. Dostoevsky was Russian, right? BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!!111

Why were both impeachments ridiculed and ignored?

The description of Rascalnikov almost arriving at terms with himself was harrowing.

Yip. If you're only talking about it, it's philosophy.

Ok. We don't get those. :D

I've never seen anything from any of those sources that is not completely biased toward the Democrat party. And I work with them every day.

An idea is valid until it has been shown impossible. My sentence structure includes the implication that validity was not being used as a permanent marker on a proposal, rather just a suggestion that ideas are free. Heh. Yeah. It is in the sense that Marke was using it. I wouldn't pick the...

A process that refuses to consider the operations of forces that cannot be seen or measured is not science.

"Science" does not come up with ideas, valid or otherwise. Science is the process of throwing them out. Until they have been excised, they are all valid. "Natural" science is a tautology, as is the case almost any time a descriptor is added to "science." People either respect the method, or...

Science is the process of throwing out ideas based on the evidence, reason and logic. This allows the process to operate upon literally any idea.

So Tulsi is a Russian spy?

Wait. But Brain told me that this was the fairest election ever and that we should all just move on.

I don't know about that, but I'm not a dictionary. :) I was using them as synonyms. Maybe usage of the term has evolved. I might investigate your source. I happily box all such things under the blanket idea of a rational investigation. Well, sure. The point is that the theory should then...

Remedial logic and remedial maths. If you want to talk about x, you need to know how x forms. That is not equal to: If you want to talk about y, you have to believe z. The question is simple. How is radioactive material formed?

A million?