The cheeseman

Synthesizer.

John Locke outlines three human rights: life, liberty, and property. Those are the only things I believe are human rights, with everything else being a civil right or a privilege. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines these as: Life: In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. Liberty: Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. Property: The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. A lot of the things you listed as human rights would fall under that definition of liberty, life, or property. Civil rights are defined by the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "...rights against discrimination, initially denoting discrimination based on race and ethnicity but soon expanding to include sex, disability, sexual preference and other salient categories of social and personal identity." I would say that in addition to that, civil rights are also anything to do with the people and functions of government. Such as: voting, equality of opportunity, or anything that the above listed human rights do not cover. In the case of something like self-defense, I would say that that falls under the right to life, because you when you have a right, you should be able to ensure and protect that right for yourself and others. A human right is something that is literally impossible to give up: your life can only be taken from you, and at that point your just dead; you always have the liberty of your own mind; and, as John Locke wrote, "Every man has a property [emphasis mine] in his own person, this no one has a right to but himself."

But a theremin isn't a flute? French horn.

Theremin. Obviously superior to even the flute.

Bass guitar.

What rights would you say are human rights (inviolate and sacrosanct) and what rights would you say are civil rights (given by the gov't and able to be taken and given)? What is something that is considered a right that you think should not be considered one?

Congrats on great grades Elf! Hope you can come back soon!

Ah, but I never engaged in the First Color War, so I have betrayed no one.

@Thaidakar the Ghostblood there are traitors in our midst.

It depends on the genre. For example, when reading The Book Thief, (which, by the way, ripped me to shreds and was the first book ever to make me cry) I quite easily got emotionally attached and invested in the characters. But if I'm reading something like The Wheel of Time or Stormlight Archive, I am usually much more emotionally invested in the plot. Do you prefer live action or animated adaptations of books?

I have. I did it whilst cracking my neck in the morning. Oops. What speed do you listen to audiobooks and/or podcasts at?1

I don't know. I have a ton on my bookshelf, but it's been a while since I've read them. But probably The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek or Republic by Plato. Do you read philosophy?

1.) The Wheel of Time. Because obviously. 2.) Anything by Tolkien. 3.) Interstellar. What genre do you read the least either on purpose or because you've never found a good book within that genre?

But why? What makes winning a scam?

My mom loves them and my dad always gets her a bunch of them for Mothers Day or her birthday. It's awesome because I like them too.

Because these are traits that, in the right amounts and with the right intent, make a good man, a strong man. Other men should strive for them because, as men, we are responsible for the safety and freedom of society. But cheesesman, why is it men that are repsonsible? It is because men are, for the most part, much more physically powerful than women. I believe that humans have a moral obligation to protect the rights and well-being of those weaker than us. So, as a man, it is your duty to protect people who are not as strong as you; be them other men or women. In the United States, only men are eligible for mandatory military service (the draft). Women, under Federal law, are exempt from being drafted. Now, a woman can still volunteer to serve in the US armed forces, she can still fight on the frontlines and give her life, but she cannot be forced by the government to do so. Men can, have, and will be required to join the military, to fight, to kill, and to die. The reason mandatory service exists is because for centuries, for millennia, men have been expected to fight in wars. We have held the responsibility to fight for our nations for as long as nations have existed. Wars are horrific. A British officer on the frontlines of WWI said, "Anyone who says he enjoys this sort of thing is either a liar or a madman." A sane human being does not want to be shot at, see mutilated corpses, or kill another human. But it happens anyway. In the Second World War, five-hundred thousand American servicemen were killed in action. For the Russians, the number was more than triple that. They knew there was a chance they were going to die, that they would never again see their homes, their friends, or their families. But they went anyway. They went, fought, and died not because they wanted to, not because of the little sums of soldiers' pay, not because they wanted to see the world. They went because it was necessary. Because it was their duty, their responsibility. If something must be done, you do it because it must. And those men did. Why? Simply put, they were men. They recognized the moral obligation put on them by being stronger than others; an obligation, as I said earlier, to protect the rights and well-being of those weaker than you. A weak man who is also an evil man is far, far more dangerous than a strong man who is also a good man. I don't quite grasp what you're trying to say here, but I'll answer as best I can. I believe that there should be standards for everyone. Since we're in a Sanderson forum, Ideals, if you will. Those things that I listed are ideals that I strive for. I workout and do combat sports so that I can be physically capable, I do competitive debate so I can have mental strength and fortitude, I am very reserved and calm in my demeanor so that I will be calm in the face of adversity, and I hone my professional skill so that I can have self-reliance and be financially secure. Again, I'm not quite sure what you're asking with that second question, but that's the best answer I'm able to give. Did you mean necessarily or is what you wrote what you meant? If it's the latter, I would direct you to my first answer. But here I'll answer if it's the former. The reason these are masculine attributes is because they are the attributes that you see traditional men have. My grandfather is the best embodiment of all them. He was a Marine, so he was (he's 71 now, but still awesome) physically capable; he does not let his emotions control him, even though they run deep and strong in him; he is a very quietly intelligent man, and well able to hold a philosophical conversation or defend his beliefs and his faith; and he grows and hunts his own food on his own land. I am not saying every man should be like my grandfather, but I am saying that what I listed are the foundations of a good, strong man. You can embody those ideals and be extremely different from the men I know. You can be any political party, any race, any sexual orientation, any religion, and still strive to be a good, strong man. Those attributes are also the sum of great men from history; men like Caesar, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionheart, William Wallace, Leif Erikson, George Washington, Horatio Nelson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Desmond Doss, Martin Luther King, Jr., and scores more. I believe we should strive to be like great men from history. And those attributes are what will start you on that path.

What do you mean by generalizations?

I believe men should adhere to traditionally masculine values. Things such as physical strength and prowess, stoicism, mental fortitude, and self-reliance. Physical strength and capability does not mean I am violent, it means I am capable of swift and great violence if the need arrives. Stoicism does not mean that I force down my emotions, that I am not emotionally available, it means that I have a mastery over my emotions, not the other way around. Mental fortitude does not make me manipulative or controlling, it allows me to have an intelligent conversation and it means I can well defend, through debate and rhetoric, the beliefs that I hold. Being self-reliant does not mean I believe that I, or men in general, should be the sole breadwinners of their households, self-reliance means that I am able to sustain myself, without needing much or any help from the government or other authorities. So why does it seem like traditionally masculine traits and values like these are always labeled as toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic? Why are men who hold these values immediately deemed as women-hating anti-feminists who only care about having status being a stud?

Listening to piano and cello covers of my favorite songs. Listening to Linkin Park. Walking in a light rain. Seeing a little child laugh or be happy. Getting into a flow state when I'm writing. Seeing that someone has commented on one of my posts. Walking around a bookstore to find books to add to my ever-expanding and never-diminishing TBR. Driving at night in the spring, with nothing around but the occasional other car and some good tunes. Finding a song I used to listen to a lot and falling in love with it again. Just sitting in my car at night, parked where I can see the lights of downtown. Reading the final chapter of a good book, huddled in my reading corner as rain softly patters on my roof in the night. can you tell I'm a night owl yet? Rewatching a movie I haven't seen in years and finding that I still love it. Watching the Star Wars: Rebels finale.

This is a very heartwarming story. As a huge baseball fan, it was great to see you bring in Babe Ruth as a mirror of the angel from It's a Wonderful Life. The only criticisms I have are nitpicks: 1) the formatting of the Doc itself was a little wonky, but mostly because it's very different from how I set up my Docs on Google. 2) For me, having the ages of the MCs children be in parentheses broke the flow of the story. My advice on that would be to find a way to work their ages into inner/spoken dialogue or to cut out the mention of their ages altogether, as it's not a necessary part of the story. Overall, your writing voice is fairly well polished, and your story made me laugh, smile, and chuckle. Keep writing, the more time you spend on something, the better you'll get.

HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!!

Aarakocras are mechanically broken. 6.5/10

I only have one question. How in the Almighty's Tenth Name do you have a an AC of 32?!