I have taken a bath and am now wearing my oh-so-snuggly, sock-monkey-design flannel pajamas. The BF is on his way home form a night in Palm Springs looking at 2007 cars and he is going to stop and pick up dinner of some sort. Life, she is good.

It is probably a good thing that I don't have the brain configuration to count cards because I would have to use it. I think. It is a dilemma I won't have to confront in this lifetime.

You know, before, when I was startled at the bank Chris Rock was making for Rush Hour 3? I take it back. I have no startle left over after learning that Jennifer Aniston makes $9M a picture.

That is startle draining.

Wow. Ummm, are her movies that successful?

On Invasion, was that deputy who was talking to the sherrif (why is it impossible for that word to look right?) - the same actor that played the soldier on Nip/Tuck this week?

Hey, our replicators are here!

Huh. No one seeked interested in that story when I posted in Bitches last week. I should have quoted.

Fuck fuck fuck. A roach was just on me!! I HATE THAT. I felt a little tickle on my arm, but I thought it was just the cat or something, but then I saw the roach on the sofa next to me, and EW. I womanfully grabbed a napkin and KILLED IT. Just ew, though.

Now I have to finish a paper but I'm all creeped out.

I actually think the former maxim is still endorseable

And impossible.

Not sure what you mean. When you do the categorical imperative calculation, which could be just one ethical standard, you imagine what if everyone followed the rule you're endorsing-- what are the consequences? I think if everyone followed the maxim

My personal ethics are in adopting the rules of the store/community/country when I cross over into it.

Then people would have no reason not to adopt completely unfair rules. I don't think the adoption of a rule by someone whose space you occupy is enough reason to find breaking it unethical. I don't think you are endorsing this, which leaves me a bit puzzled. I have plenty of non-ethical, self-interested reasons why I would follow the rules. But I think your rule crosses over into adopting everyone else's preferences into your ethics.

I think your rule crosses over into adopting everyone else's preferences into your ethics.

Well, you didn't reprint the part where I say this works in some scenarios and not in others.

I think your rule crosses over into adopting everyone else's preferences into your ethics.

Assuming that it was 100% applied (which I have stated is not the case), it would cross over into me accepting other people's preferences when I'm in their domains, with no onus on me to be in everyone's domain and certainly not simultaneously.

The fact that the rule only works in some scenarios and not others is why I think it's not a good rule. And why following that rule is therefore not a matter of ethics.