JASKN

Not to be a dick, but I'm just not going to read this because it hurts my head to separate the text. Please fix your formatting.

I'm pretty sure the purpose of a government is only to protect private property, not all land everywhere, even land not claimed by individuals.

Yeah, I wondered how she got in there, too. And I also didn't realize the lines were glass shelves.

Spoiler: I give away major plots points in the series here I can't believe how much info people have gathered on the seventh book. I just checked Wikipedia's entry and I had to try not to read it because I don't want the final book spoiled, which wasn't an easy feat. I doubt she kills two of the top three main characters. From what I read, she just said "main," and she did not say "of the three." Anyway, I dealt with his godfather fine, I soon came to understand that Dumbledore was a necessity, but I am sick of death, and as a reader I need her to justify them. I hope book seven does that. I am a huge fan of this series, not crazy "follow it like it's real," but I basically sop up every word I can (even book five).

Ok, I agree with you that a person who cannot distinguish right from wrong by definition cannot be morally judged, and I appreciate the legal clarification. However, as JMeganSnow mentioned, a lifelong label of "insane" would be even worse, as that person could no longer be considered human. And we, as higher beings, so to speak, with still the ability to judge for ourselves, would be correct in either locking the insane person up or banishing him from our land, right? I think that is no light decision to make, but it is a sort of win-win situation for everyone but the criminal, since an insanity plea is essentially condemning one's self to life as a sub-human or, if found to be sane, life as an incarcerated human. ... Actually, as I read an article about Andrea Yates' ruling just now, it occurred to me that it may be right to release a previously insane person if competent doctors decided the person could now function normally. I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while "insane" to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

In light of Andrea Yates judged to be not-guilty for the murder of her 5 children, I was thinking about the insanity plea that got her off. Is there any justice in such a plea, ever? Say someone blows up a small village, or part of the moon, or some other more catastrophic act than murdering your own children, nobody would excuse the person, just because of insanity. Why is someone not at fault for being insane? It's certainly not the fault of anyone else. Does the justice system consider insanity outside the realm of human control, like a volcano? I don't get it. Can someone explain to me the moral validation or lack thereof of being excused for a crime due to fleeting or otherwise "insanity"?

I tried joining the US military, for financial reasons and because I thought the experience sounded worth it. I think it can be an excellent option for smart people who grew up in poor families (meaning parents who have a difficult time or an impossible time getting their kids off to a good start). In the end I had to find different options, because the military had a problem with my medical history. (Yes, I did try to get around it).

What a contemptible, miserable statement to make.

Oh. My dad always called them mini bikes.

No, you're thinking of a mini bike, which happens to be equally as uncool as a moped... maybe a tiny bit cooler.

That looks like a sweet road. I bet it's better in the summer, too. Probably too slow for me, though.

Why did Michael Jackson dangle his baby over the balcony? Because he heard his wife ask someone to drop the boy off a few stories! What's the difference between him and his wife? A few dress sizes!

I understand that you believe you are correct and I am pretentious because you know more about the historical context of clothing than I do. Well, I think it's great that you can explain what clothing means to you and why you like and wear what you do. But I have already explained why I think you are wrong. As far as I am concerned, in the greatest way that I can manage without compromising something more important, no person's opinion of what I am wearing is going to stop me from wearing it if I like the clothes. Really, what do you expect me to do, Dismuke? Immerse myself in the history of fashion in order to make sure I know exactly what other people in a completely unrelated era have thought about a specific article of clothing that I am wearing so that I can decide how to wear it? Insane! Who cares, anyway? Edit: I am very aware of the modern, general views on what different types of clothing communicate. I choose to place little value on that communication and much more on my personal preferences. I am also very aware of any possible consequence that I am able to predict, as a result.

There are a billion things out there to do, and someone else may have thought up something you would have never dreamed of, but that you nevertheless would still enjoy. Google people hang-glide-surfing to get a personal example for me. Looks fun as hell, but I would have never thought of it. Konerko, I guess you're already into exercising and sports based on your quotes, but I like biking on the road. You can get an adequate road bike for around 700 bucks, which I would suggest anyway since you don't know if you like it yet. I think mountain biking sounds awesome, too, but I haven't tried it yet. With most lesser-known sports you can find groups of people who already get together for it, via the web, and they're always willing to help new people out. Kayaking is fun. I don't know the kind of time you're planning on devoting to the hobby, but learning an instrument is fun and rewarding. Drawing is too.

Let me explain something about clothing as it is being discussed in this thread. As everyone knows, the only reason clothing has such a meaning as disrespectful, trendy, ironic, or whatever is because people give it that meaning. Thus, every idea that a piece of clothing could represent, such as nihilistic, can be changed by me, or you, or anyone. There is not a dictionary which defines the meaning of clothing in different contexts. If the hippies of the '60s would have dressed up as 1830 English upper-class, you could just as easily make up and associate the same meaning for that clothing that you do for jeans and flowy material now. And judging whether a person is respectful based on his clothing is right up there with the importance of manners. You can do it if you want, and it may help you in dealing with people more easily in the short-term, or you can say, "This is just plain stupid, even if it is easier for someone else to deal with right now, so I'm not going to comply. From now on, I'm doing it this way, and I mean no less respect." If someone has a major problem, they can ask about it and have the situation clarified. When you pick your clothing, pick it for practical reasons and then for personal aesthetic reasons. Beyond that, it's nobody's damn business but yours.

Well I'm here to say that what is currently considered "work appropriate" is just plain stupid. The main reason people wear suits and ties to work is because other people consider the ensemble to be the appropriate attire. Not only would most people would prefer to be more relaxed, and I see no problem with that, but they also look terrible in suits because they are too fat or have odd bodies. The real issue is that most people have no idea what it means to dress for their own bodies, not that men aren't wearing out-of-date hats and white, hemmed pants. What most men pass off as work-appropriate simply because it includes trousers, a jacket, a button-down and tie, I consider sad, sad, sad, uninspired, or careless.

The Sixth Sense was an awesome movie, and Signs was... not a huge waste of time. I haven't seen his others. If you value the opinion of critics, find what the Tomatometer turns up at rottentomatoes.com.

Or, jeans (if you buy the right ones) are comfortable, breathe well while maintaining your body temperature, make your ass look great (if you have something to work with), and most importantly go with virtually everything, including ties. The only reason a tie wouldn't go with jeans is if you said it wouldn't, or, ties are only a sign of formality to those who choose to label them as such, in a certain context. The picture I linked fits none of your all-encompassing "signals," but in fact is a good mix of color and texture, as I described.

I figured that was the case.

This might sound ridiculous to you, but I would have liked a warning something like, "Someone's going to get shot and you're going to see it." I hadn't thought about it until those videos, but I've never seen an actual person shot before, only in the movies. It was jarring and it bothered me (they fired many shots), and that man was certainly dead on the scene. Besides that, I feel they were justified in shooting him given the circumstances presented by the second video. All I got from the first one was a guy walking away, then getting blown away for it.

Concerning jeans, in the widest modern context it would be ridiculous to classify them workwear. Today, jeans are a luxury item, where brands like Diesel, Versace, PaperDenim, or even Abercrombie and Levi's make an entirely different product than Wrangler or other styles of Levi's. The cuts are vastly different and the dying processes are more complex. And if there wasn't a market for it, they wouldn't be so widespread. Personally I would gladly take bluejeans over khakis every day. There is also no reason why a tie can't look good with jeans. If you take a tie for what it really is, a piece of decoration, all you have to do is mix the right colors and textures to get a good result. Mr. Fox unfortunately failed on both accounts, although his jeans are terrible to begin with. The picture I've attached provides a slightly better example. tie and jeans

You haven't said anything positive about your potential situation, or your brother, other than you may like his kids once you start hanging around them. Kudos, also, to being able to remove yourself from the family element of the situation. If you can find a way to stay away from your brother most of the time, and you think there is a good chance you will enjoy his kids, enough to make writing novels a more difficult task and enough to give up a big part of your life for a while, do it. But don't move in with the ultimate goal being to let him keep his youngest kid. He sounds kind of messed up to me, and an adoption would probably not be a bad option for the 1-year-old. I think the other advice given to you was good, also.

So sex hits its highest potential when you engage in it with someone of the greatest total value that you can find. I agree. However, none of your quotes, Inspector, or Jennifer, have explained why I must reach that highest potential for sex to be moral. Why can't I say, "You look damn good, you're good in bed, that is value enough for me right now."? Masturbating is a good time and there is nothing wrong with that, why can't sex be a slightly different good time when romance and love is not involved? What is immoral about that? From my own experience, I have found it impossible to divorce a person's mind from their body in the way I just described. I have experienced not enjoying sex. But I know people who can eliminate a person's mind to have sex with basically a body, or at least it seems like they can, and I honestly can't find grounds on which to condemn them other than, "It didn't work for me." So where are those grounds?

That's a pretty strong reaction, Olex. You must care at least a little to create such a simile. I think you may have misinterpreted Jennifer's point, though. If not, why, exactly, is such an approach so horrible? A question to everyone generally: Where is the evidence to back up the idea that sex is like a life-and-death situation? People on this board are always spouting things like, "It's too great a thing," "It means too much," "I have too much to lose," and so forth. Do you have experience or scientific studies to back this up? How did you come to be aware of the great toll on your psychology that having sex deals?

It's nice how you've ignored half of my posts in order to make your point. As I said, I place aesthetics in high esteem, but I prefer to base them on a utilitarian function. Also, my idea of glamor is obviously different from yours. Perhaps you liked my description; I could have included "over-cupped."