alexahet

most residential equipment can't even leverage those speeds. complete waste :lol:

Well luckily for me I have savings and a 401k, 529s and a life insurance policy.

Taking vacations doesn’t mean no savings.

Sorry your life is so black and white

No big vacation this summer.

Spent a few days down shore and then we went up to NH where we probably spent about $500 for 3 days on food and activities. We drove up and stayed at a friend's beach house. Let's say $1k on various smaller activities/daytrips.

We have another 3-day trip up to Bear Mtn State Park and 3 days in NYC over Christmas. NYC will be brutal for 3 days, it's like $2k on the hotel alone

I love our VW Jetta Sport. Easiest purchase of my life and it's a great commuter car.

coffee and interview prep. :gmt:

I hate you for exposing me to this trial more than I’d wanted to. If this is accurate I have questions - so many questions

LINK

There’s a difference between defending what she did and trying to understand whether severe mental illness affected her ability to understand or control her actions.

No one here is saying, “Being a mommy is hard, so murdering your children is understandable.” That is a caricature of what people are actually discussing.
The question is whether severe mental illness affected Lindsay Clancy’s criminal responsibility at the time of the killings. Her intentional physical actions are obviously relevant evidence, but they do not by themselves resolve whether her perception of reality was so impaired that she met the legal standard for lack of criminal responsibility. That is precisely why there is a trial.

Additionally, it is the job of her defense to create reasonable doubt and based on what people here are saying: They’re clearly doing their job. Some comments seem to believe the husband may have done it. :dunno:

Any way - thanks for the discussion. Time for me to go get my kids

I agree with your point of view and if she did it, I agree that sympathy is likely the wrong choice of words on my part.

Touché Poo

I can see your point. My initial response was more to OP who seems to be in their “burn them at the stake” era.

But because I’m slow this Friday afternoon let’s discuss: I believe the flaw in your reasoning (correct me if I’m wrong) is that sympathy = justification. Which (at least for me personally) it is not.

Why does sympathy require believing the act was justified? Those are completely different moral judgments. I can have enormous sympathy for the children, believe what happened was horrific, and still feel for a human being whose mind was severely diseased at the time.

The whole point of recognizing serious mental illness is that ‘reasonable accordance’ is not always the appropriate standard, because illnesses involving psychosis can fundamentally distort a person’s perception of reality. Sympathy is not acquittal, approval, or an excuse. In my opinion, it is recognizing human suffering even when the outcome of that suffering is something I find horrifying. Keep in mind that I am intentionally avoiding this trial because I can’t stomach the details. Same as the Athena Strand case - I could NEVER bring myself to learn about that trial.

Anyway.. you are free to say your disgust outweighs your sympathy personally.

But my point to the OP is that it doesn’t make someone else irrational or immoral for being capable of holding both feelings at once.

Could not agree more

Two things can be true for what it’s worth. You can acknowledge PTSD/PPD/mental health issues are real and sympathize with that while also believing that someone deserves to be in jail. It’s not a defense.

However - didn’t Chris Watts also claim his wife killed the girls and then it turned out it was him?