Your problem is that you religious nut cases tend to read more into things than are actually written.
There is a difference between bigamy and marrying a 15 year old. Even outside the laws of Texas, I can’t think of a society that wouldn’t determine that there’s a difference between a 17 year old marrying a 15 year old and a 39 year old marrying a 15 year old.
I said that it was legal to marry a 15 year old girl. First you called me a liar by saying that bigamy was illegal, as if that disputed my statement. Now you are trying to say that there is a difference between a 17 and a 39 year old marrying a 15 year old girl. There is, but that is relevant how? Can I give you a clue? Think before you post.
Moreover, the flds knew the law in Texas. The indicted men and the women who have lost custody of their children, as well as those children, live in Texas.
Are you trying to imply that I thought this all took place in Kansas? Or that just maybe the FLDS knew that Texas allowed 15 year olds to marry. I am curious as to what point you are trying to make.
Attempting to ignore facts and the local laws, or to live as though breaking those laws is without consequence, is not the mark of a logical mind. For these parents to repeatedly do so when there’s increased scrutiny and power on the part of the courts is more than plain dumb: it’s negligence, if not criminal.
Are you trying to say that ignorance is criminal? LOL Maybe it should be. Some people are too stupid to live.
There is evidence of negligence and criminal activity in that the Barlowe and Jeffs 14 and 16 year old daughters believe they are married to much older men who have other "wives," and that a large number of other flds 14, 15, and 16 year olds have given birth.
I don't have the Lectures (they were old even when I was a little girl, I'll wait for the next definitive set), so I had fun reviewing material available on the Internet about Schroedinger's cat, Feynman and the latter's views on the origin of the universe. There are lists of errata, reviews, powerpoint presentations by Hawkins' and others, and comments from and about tons of physicists and philosophers.
You are right in that Schroedinger used that darn cat to object to aspects of the current observation in quantum theory and to demonstrate that cat is always in one state or the other. Others make that cat do all sorts of things.
However, nothing I read convinced me that Feynman did more than string us along the wrong paths, lead us 'round and 'round.