You are absolutely right, I completely forgot that she claimed to have bought them in an "Asian market" that she couldn't remember where was, and she must have paid cash.
And that she had erased her phone for some reason.

Good catch. 👍

The Christian way of "helping".

This is the best article I've read on this story yet.
It quickly becomes very obvious that she killed those 3 people, where the only remaining question is whether she did it on purpose.
But the matter with the very obviously different colored plate, is very damaging to her.
And then the matter of throwing out a mushroom dryer that has traces of the toxin. A dryer she claimed she had never owned!
And the fact that she had used a website warning against the Death cap at certain sites.
And the fact that she had visited exactly those sites.
Giving children chocolate with dried mushroom in it, and remarking they didn't even notice!
Her story about throwing up after the guests left, but she still went to the hospital a couple of days later claiming she felt ill, but there was no trace of the toxin in her blood. That does not ring true either.
The invitation itself was considered a bit strange too, since it was not something she usually did.
And the fact that she had been suspected of trying to kill her husband before, does not help.

Seems to me the police did good work here, maybe because she had been suspected before? And the evidence against her is pretty overwhelming that these killings were intentional.

Der er studier der påviser at religiøs praksis (bøn og meditation) kan mindske stress og give mening for mennesker i krise.

Du skriver det jo nærmest selv, religionen er et overflødigt element, og jeg vil mene meditation virker bedre.
Der er ingen sky-daddy der hjælper, og der er ingen sky-cookie som belønning.

end blot at skrive at noget er nederen,

Jeg skriver det ikke er rationelt, det er sådan set begrundelsen. At noget er rationelt betyder at der er grund til at tro noget og anvende det i praksis.
Hvis der ikke er nogen rationel grund, er der heller ingen grund til at tro det kan medføre noget godt.

Så jeg skriver ikke bare at det er nederen, men skriver faktisk grunden til at det er skadeligt.
Så er du velkommen til at spørge ind eller modargumentere, hvis du er uenig.

Jeg bliver altid mistroisk når jeg hører folk tale om at uden religion har mennesket intet moralsk kompas.

Det er der også god grund til, for det er direkte vås.
Mennesker har et indbygget moralsk kompas som er udviklet gennem evolution, og har til formål at hjælpe og beskytte gruppen man tilhører.
Dette er endda også påvist blandt andre flokdyr.

Til gengæld er religion det stærkeste værktøj der findes til at få folk til at IGNORERE deres moral.
Biblens læren om at stene folk for at arbejde på helligdagen, og slå folk ihjel hvis de har sex udenfor ægteskab er to meget tydelige eksempler på manglen på moral i Biblen.
Men især Biblens læren om at det er OK for en slave ejer at straffe en slave så han dør af det, er vel nok blandt de mest kvalmende kristne vejledninger.

Også straffen for en kvinde, hvis manden MISTÆNKER hun er blevet gravid fordi hun har været utro er grusom.
Så skal hun spise gift, hvis hun dør var hun skyldig!

Betyder ikke at religiøse mennesker skal tvinges til at blive ateister,

Nej det kan man ikke rigtigt. Men man kan gøre det ulovligt for dem at sprede deres udokumenterede gylle med tomme løfter om evigt liv, på samme måde som Nazi propaganda er ulovligt. Og så kan man fjerne skattefrihed for religiøse bevægelser.

Jeg ved ikke hvorfor vi skal finde os i at religiøst pladder fylder vores medier, og endda ofte bringes ind i politiske debatter?
Hvad med at de religiøse reelt begrundede gavnen af deres religion? Men det kan de ikke. Kristendom har haft 2000 år til at vise noget, men der er stadig intet der så meget som antyder rigtigheden af Kristendom. De har intet gavnligt at pege på som har bund i realitet og fornuft.

Kristendom er ligeså lidt gavnligt som homøopati, som igen og igen er bevist ikke at have effekt udover placebo.
Må jeg så heller ikke kalde placebo tåbeligt at spilde tid på og endog skadeligt da det kan forsinke folk i at søge reel behandling?
Religioner forlanger ikke bare at blive respekteret, de forlanger særbehandling mod kritik og til at diskriminere mens de samtidig er skatteundtaget! Hvorfor er diskrimination accepteret i folkekirken når det er ulovligt i resten af samfundet?
F.eks. mht. at nægte vielse af homoseksuelle, eller ikke tillade kvindelige biskopper, og mange menighedsråd diskriminerer stadig imod kvindelige præster.
Er der virkelig stadig folk der er ubekendt med dybe problemer med religion? Og som ikke forstår at nogen af os har fået mere end nok for årtier siden!

Når jeg skriver religion er mental cancer, er det ikke bare et kraft udtryk. Jeg mener det 100% bogstaveligt.
Religion er ekstremt skadeligt for både individ og samfund, ligesom andre former for overtro også kan være det.
Men blandt de forskellige former for overtro er religion nok den mest skadelige.

F.eks. Biblen som er fundamentet for Kristendom som er den religion vi er mest belastet af herhjemme, er samlet af skrifter der er næsten 2000 år gamle for nyt testamente, gammelt testamente er endnu ældre.
Og der er absolut ingen visdom at finde i biblen efter dagens standard. Der er ingen beviser for en eneste af de fantastiske påstande der er i biblen. Hvordan i alverden bliver det stadig taget seriøst?

Beskyttelse af religion er tydeligt skadeligt, hvilket nok beskrives bedst med tolerance paradokset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

At tolerere religions intolerance skaber intolerance i samfundet.
Jødeforfølgelsen i Tyskland under anden verdenskrig var baseret på Martin Luthers skrifter.
I dag påstår Katolikker og Paven at de nu er tolerante overfor homoseksuelle, men diskriminerer dem stadig, f.eks. med forbud mod at blive gift.

Det er et koncept skabt i USA, hvor at du skal bruge din tro på at jesus hjælpewr dig med at holde op med at drikke, hvis det så lykkes, skal du takke jesus, og ikke din egen viljestyrke.

Det er måske modereret med tiden og i Danmark. Men oprindelsen er stærkt kristen, og kristen tro er en del af metoden.

https://www.aa.org/twelve-steps-twelve-traditions

Jeg tjekkede lige om det stadig er en del af programmet, og allerede punkt to er fyldt med bavl om tro.
Men hvis du har lyst kan du jo se selv med linket.

This sounds so stupid, that you are probably right.
Because American politics are so fucking stupid, and Democrats are a bunch of sheep.
With a few exceptions like AOC, Bernie and Hogg who actually tried to shake things up a bit, but was removed for it!
Hogg was fucking right, Democrats need to get rid of the old Wall Street pandering, and seats should be competitive, not automatically continued without competition.

It's absolutely insane that USA now has not just one Nazi party but two!!

The article later goes on to talk about how he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life by a judge.

Sorry, I skimmed the article earlier and missed that, but now I see it.

I'm not sure what your point is? You state according to the prosecutor, when I just stated that a sentence is not normally according to a prosecutor, but an actual court decision!
The headline clearly indicates that he actually got life in prison, as he was sentenced by the court. But completely fails to mention the actual judgement by the court?
The prosecutor is not responsible for announcing sentencing, but the prosecutor is the only source stated.
Repeating what the prosecutor stated once again does not help.

I know that, that's common knowledge.
But if the research shows anything that's statistically significant, it would show a level of benefit.
To say that it could as in hypothetically, implies the research didn't really show anything one way or the other.
You could say the same of homeopathic medicine. It could be a benefit, except nothing has ever shown it to be.
Personally I'm pretty sure owning a pet like a dog or a cat is indeed beneficial, so I find it disappointing if this is not shown in research.
I believe there has been studies made that show lower rate of heart conditions among pet owners. There is also a sort of consensus that it helps psychologically for instandce against depression.
So it's not a long stretch to think it "could" help brain functions in other ways too.
It's just disappointing that according to the headline, the study failed to show that. Which made me not care to read it.

It was so obviously stupid back then, that only people too young to remember don't know this.
Trump had no reason to tear up that agreement, he did it because it was an agreement Obama had made, and Trump was hellbent on reversing everything Obama did out of spite and nothing else.

This is physics 101, warm air can hold more water at the same relative humidity. When air is warmed it collects humidity, and when the humidity condenses to water, it cools, and the cascading effect is bigger proportionally to the increased level of water in the air.

Even I figured that out more than 10 years ago, without being a climate scientist, but based on basic physics.
And in my country, we've also been seeing it clearly for some years now, and most regions are expanding sewage systems to be able to handle it.

But of course climate change deniers probably couldn't figure such things out, and need it explained as you would to a child.

life sentence for plotting to attack FBI agents and seeking to incite a “civil war,” according to prosecutors.

???

Usually a sentence is not according to a prosecutor, but a court decision by a judge.
So which is it?

AA er kvalmende Kristent.

Det nærmest sammenlignelige er nok mindfulness.

Religion er overtro og en mental cancer, både for individ og samfund.
Jeg har kun foragt for folk der forsøger at bilde os ind at vi har brug for mere overtro.
Hvis menneskeheden var reelt rationel, ville vi have afskaffet religion for 100 år siden.

OK, except the post indicate building a new garage to get rid of the unused car.
Kind of overkill IMO.