Huh, the documentation must have surfaced in one of the last books.

As for Josephine, still not buying it. Even if Ike is related to them by blood, he is still presumed dead at the time they’re adopted. Especially since Josephine had no children of her own, calling her their “relative” in a legal sense seems doubtful (though maybe we should get a second option from r/LegalAdvice). Don’t their parents have any living siblings?

You have an excellent point, Hilda — did you see my reply about the Church abuse cases?

Also, I get the feeling that your example is autobiographical — in which case, I am very sorry and hope that you are finding peace. (hugs)

[To whoever downvoted this comment: I sincerely apologize for trying to be kind to someone who might have been hurting. Please get a life.]

I remember in elementary school learning about kinds of conflict as well- man vs nature, man vs god, man vs man, and man vs self.

The timelessness and commonality of the human experience can be disheartening and, also, profoundly beautiful. I think it can be chalked up to the fact that after all, we are still animals.

First of all, I’m 7. (Just kidding, I’m 69.)

It’s curious that you chose this particular comment to reply to when it seems to grant a lot of your point. I’m also confused as to whether you agree that adults are stupid or are citing me critically. Or, idk … maybe both?

[deleted]

humans are just big,overly glorified apes: once you know how apes works then you've pretty much got humans down too because there is little difference between a human and a chimp right down to basic instincts such as tribalism and idol worship.

everything humans do is because of some primal instinct that humanity hasn't evolved past.

I LOVE the idea of a kids book where “adults are stupid” is a central theme. BUT we don’t need 13 books of them being stupid in the same exact way. Ya know? Make them stupid in different ways!

Hahahah. Op if I didn’t know better I would have thought I wrote this post. Agree with everything you said.

I didn’t read these books as a kid or teen, but as an adult reading them with/to my kid (from the age 7 to 9). And he loved them at first. But somewhere around book 8 he asked if it was going to be just like the other 7 books? And once we read it and it was a copy paste of the other 7, he said he didn’t want to read anymore.

I do wish we had skipped to the last one but when a 9 y/o is pointing out the writing flaws, you have a problem.

But I will say the Netflix series did a great job of streamlining the books.

"Adults are very stupid" - an adult

Seriously, any contested custody case proves the books are quite realistic. Yes, I couldn't finish them, either. Sure, they felt unrealistic.

Are they unrealistic? Maybe, but not in portraying adults as stupid and obtuse, utterly blind to abuse and malevolence. That part was entirely accurate.

We're all the same species. We effectively evolved the same baseline for survival. The same driving forces, the same fears, the same fight/flight/freeze response to danger.

The only thing that varies are the outside forces that act on us like culture and environment.

I don’t think op is arguing that adults ignoring children is something that doesn’t happen. It’s that it KEEPS happening and the adults continue to ignore the children. It’s the opposite of the boy who cried wolf.

My bad, you're correct... It's not stealing, it's "possession of stolen goods" which is a totally separate crime (in most places, at least...)

> Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods. In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods (or property) and knew they were stolen, then the individual may be charged with a crime... > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods

I've read the books many times and loved them every time, but I recognise they are kind of odd. When I was a kid, I always interpreted the adults' incompetence as a satire of the 'we know better' attitude that a lot of adults adopt whenever a kid tries to tell them something is wrong

Per Vonnegut
>researchers found there are “six core trajectories which form the building blocks of complex narratives”. These are: “rags to riches” (a story that follows a rise in happiness), “tragedy”, or “riches to rags” (one that follows a fall in happiness), “man in a hole” (fall–rise), “Icarus” (rise–fall), “Cinderella” (rise–fall–rise), and “Oedipus” (fall–rise–fall).

Wow all these privileged people acting like they don’t download things from the internet every day.

[removed]

In Frankenstein's defense I would argue that the monster has a conscience that's equivalent to an adult human conscience (at least when some of the crimes were committed, if I remember the book correctly), and so the monster is capable of legal guilt. In that scenario, Dr. Frankenstein is akin to the monster's parent. We can decry his actions but, ultimately, it's the monster who's responsible.

In prosecuting Frankenstein I'd argue the opposite: That the monster is merely a machine (albeit a biological machine) and therefore has no conscience. Granted, that argument would have worked better in the late 18th century than today!

What's interesting to me about this question is that it probably won't be much longer before it goes from being hypothetical to being an actual legal case. Presumably, at some point in the not too distant future, a human-created machine with at least the appearance of sentience will harm someone and we'll have to decide, legally, who's responsible. I don't think we know how to determine whether such a machine has a conscience. After all, the consciousness of a human defendant is only a legal presumption. We have no way of knowing it exists. Will we decide to extend that presumption to anything that behaves like it has consciousness? Anything that claims to have consciousness?

Its not stealing , its downloading. You know like we all do everyday on the internet.

I know how to use the internet effectively and get things for free without any virus.

Per Rule 3.6: No distribution or solicitation of pirated books.

We aren't telling you not to discuss piracy (it is an important topic), but we do not allow anyone to share links and info on where to find pirated copies. This rule comes from no personal opinion of the mods' regarding piracy, but because /r/books is an open, community-driven forum and it is important for us to abide the wishes of the publishing industry.

For someone on a book sub , this is a really lame response. Lol

[deleted]

So little fun memory: A few years back, Lemony Snicket/Daniel Handler did a Q&A on Tumblr (essentially their version of an AMA). I tried asking what was really in the Sugar Bowl, but he didn't answer. I knew he probably wouldn't, but I thought I'd just throw it out there. And I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who asked that either.

Why do you guys pay for cars? You have to deal with things like registration and driver's licenses if you pay, and you're probably just supporting big companies and not the actual workers.

Using a lockpick and some knowledge of wiring, you can steal almost any car for free, and in different models that you may not be able to afford if you bought it.