The face of awesomeness

How can you prove it is right to save someone from drowning or it's wrong to kill? It seems intuitive, but there isn't any evidence that the concepts exist outside of our minds as far as I can see. I'm not planning on murdering anyone, but I don't really see a decent reason not to aside from avoiding jail or the death penalty.

I'm not saying killing civilians, raping, pillaging, and concentration camps are alright. However, lining men up and telling them to shoot at each other, against their will if they're drafted, doesn't seem like less of a crime to me. Furthermore, making a quick and decisive victory by any means necessary and ending the conflict as soon as possible seems like more of a mercy than letting a war drag on. However, one would think war its self is the actual crime, making "war crime" redundant.

I heard someone call a person "More crooked than a Virginia fence" and was wondering what that means. Obviously it means they're crooked, but what makes a Virginia fence more crooked than any other?

If I wrote an encyclopedia of an imaginary world, like any wiki page, could you enjoy something like that?

Lets say I ask someone why it's wrong to kill another person. The first thing they will say is "It's just wrong." To which I say "why." They'd probably say "because society can't function if people are going around killing each other." "Ok, why does society need to function?' "So we'll have food, protection, and culture." "WHY?!" Basically, I could keep going on, and there would never be a subjective reason for not killing. And if morality is arbitrary, why can't I go on a killing spree getting rid of people I dislike?

Is every living thing with individual DNA its own species? Is every living thing a single species with our common ancestor? It is usually a place between these that the line is drawn. Is there a clear point for deciding the distinction? Why aren't differing "races" considered different species? Isn't the whole system completely arbitrary? And if that's the case, hasn't a new problem been introduced? If the division between human and animal is arbitrary, why don't animals have the same rights as us? I don't actually agree with all these statements, I just want some opinions on the topic and that is were my train of thought led.

Why should we even bother living? Why should I get out of bed in the morning as apposed to just lying there and dying of dehydration?

God did it for Joseph, why not you?

I've found two sources on the internet saying since cats extremely respected in Islam that food sampled by them is halal. I can't find anything more specific than that though. Is all food sampled by a cat considered halal, including pork? Only food from animals that are considered clean but were not slaughtered or processed properly? What are the specifics on this rule?

I don't want to just say "will you be my girlfriend". You don't walk up to people and ask them to be your friend, you cultivate a relationship with the. So I see no reason it should be different. However, I feel like we need to define the relationship and agree that we're exclusive. I also want a better view on where our relationship stands. I thought about just updating my facebook status to say we are in a relationship, but that seems to impersonal. asking if we are in a relationship or to be exclusive is to close to what I don't want to do though. what is a good way to go about this?

I'm 20, and she is 16. she is super mature. we've been on a couple dates but have mostly just hung out as friends. my family and her family are both completely comfortable with the idea. I really like her, and i'm almost positive she likes me. we have so much in common and I want to ask her to be my girlfriend when she gets back from a trip she is on. I feel like four years isn't be that big of a difference and if she was 20 and I 24 nobody would care. opinions please?

Is this an historical fact or legend, or am I confusing her with someone else? What battle was it?

I was looking though the prophets and oracles from the Sistine chapel and came across a close up of The David's face. I felt like it looked similar to the Delphic Oracle. Also Michaelangelo used male models for his female works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_Sibyl#/media...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)...

Do you see the similarity or know if they're the same person?

Is your day going good? Anything interesting happen?

I've asked the question once but am redoing it. The book is going to be the story of a culture spanning over eons. If I want to write it in first person with a single person I am limited to two immortal characters. The first is the king, he is descended from gods and is the creator god of the people, he is a giant and has to seem cold and untouchable the majority of the time. Even though he is a symbol for human creativity he can't seem human. If I wrote it from his point of view the book will seem like it is written by a sociopath, it will be emotionless and will not be relatable. The second option for first person is the queen. She was created by the king so someone who was immortal and human at the same time could rule with him. I don't want her present throughout the whole book though because after a falling out with the king she leaves and most of her returns will be attacks. That and by the end her immortality will make her as inhuman if not worse than the king. I could switch between points of view and write it from the points of view of her numerous descendent who rule after she leaves, but that will leave to many styles of writing. The ideas for the king and queen are going to stay the same, so I either need to find a way to make that work or come up with a new character. Any suggestions are appreciated.

The book is going to stretch over the centuries of the same culture. There are only two immortal characters, aside from gods who will not play a significant role except in the religions. One is the king, a descendent of gods and a god to the people, he is kind of inhumane though, and I don't know how to make him relatable. The other is a creation of his, he wanted someone who could relate to people and still see the bigger picture to rule with him, so he created a immortal queen to rule with him. The problem with her is that she can't be present in some of the parts I want to include because they had a falling out. The problem with mortal characters is that a single one cannot be the point of view for the whole book. I tried starting at the end and having the king tell everything to the last queen but it was awkward and seemed illogical that she would listen to that long of a story while the world is ending. I've considered pulling a "Cloud Atlas" and writing a combination of notes and narration and such but I really don't like the idea for it. I know it sounds sort of mixed up when I try to describe it, but I'm thinking it will be better all written down. So, any suggestions?

I basically just want to wander the globe with no true direction and scavenge and beg for necessities. This way I can put all my time and energy into cultivating myself and learning about the world. I don't want to spend my life trying to keep a job and a house, I just want to be free and do my own thing. I don't want to hurt my parents though and I don't know how to explain it to them, every time I've tried to bring it up they flip out and say I'd be wasting my life away, but I feel like I'm wasting it trying to please them. It is like what I know to be true, that I'm not bound down by anything, and reality are at odds. Any suggestions or has anyone else tried this?

A new moon is when the earth blocks the suns light from the moon, and a solar eclipse is when the moon blocks the suns light from earth. So shouldn't a lunar eclipse be when the earth blocks the suns light from the moon, the same as a new moon. What am I missing? there seems to be a difference, because every new moon isn't called a lunar eclipse, but I don't understand it.

Towards the beginning of genesis angel (Sons of god) come down and procreate with human women because they find the to be so beautiful, but when Jesus is asked how resurrection would be possible, because if a woman went through a bunch of husbands and they all died she wouldn't know which she was married to if they all rose, he said they would be asexual like angels. So which is it?

I've read that Buddha didn't prohibit all meat to monk and didn't prohibit any to regular people. Also, there is evidence that plants are just as alive as animals. I tried it for a day, and instead of feeling like I was being compassionate to animals it was more like I had made myself more aware of what I eat. Since Buddhism is all about awareness, is it possible that was the reason for the dietary restrictions? Besides, aren't all living things just part of one large living thing, meaning there is no true reason not to kill anything?