Ffenix

I'm offended by that statement.
 
Then I go and look at most of my coworkers and realize I'm the weird one. *Sigh*

I don't agree that a topic as important as sexuality does not require parental permission first.  Sure, if my boy stole a cookie from a cookie jar or if he said inappropriate things in Sunday School or if he was disrupting the class or getting too competitive at mutual.... etc. etc. etc.  Reprimand my kid and tell me about it so I can reinforce it at home.  But, teaching my child about what they interpreted as my child's sexually inappropriate behavior?  Talk to the parent first.  And especially don't sneak my child out of my house for it.

I can only assume he does, because if he can convince us to disbelieve truth, he's still won in a small way.

Apologies to everyone whose responses I didn't read, I got to page 3(ish) and decided It was getting to tl;dr lengths.
From what I can tell, The OP is questioning why we are willing to accept the idea of a Dear John so easily, despite the pain it may cause the receiver. Perfectly acceptable, it's not exactly something I can see as being easy to work through for the other. Possibly they might need some help and support from friends and family to work through it, depending on how invested they were. IMO support should be given to both sides if you have the ability to do so.
Then I read some of the posts that were more condemning of the writer of the letter, whether for not keeping their word or for being so loose about their supposed SO's feelings. While I'm not sure of the OP and his SO's age (I think he said they were 27 and 25 respectively, but IDR) I think that Dear Johns while on a mission are accepted because those involved have not reached the age of accountability for these types of decisions. Perhaps that's the wrong term, but it's the one I have.
As for cases involving older people, I really don't know enough about how people work etc. to come up with a viable opinion (as I see it) but the way I see it, by then you should be old enough to work through things like civilized people, even if it is by letter or other long-distance communication, rather than just saying "Oh hey, I'm getting married to somebody else next week" or whatever other sort of things get said. however, in the OP's case, I think she could have waited the week needed to tell him in person. it's one week, for goodness sake.

Apologies to everyone whose responses I didn't read, I got to page 3(ish) and decided It was getting to tl;dr lengths.
From what I can tell, The OP is questioning why we are willing to accept the idea of a Dear John so easily, despite the pain it may cause the receiver. Perfectly acceptable, it's not exactly something I can see as being easy to work through for the other. Possibly they might need some help and support from friends and family to work through it, depending on how invested they were. IMO support should be given to both sides if you have the ability to do so.
Then I read some of the posts that were more condemning of the writer of the letter, whether for not keeping their word or for being so loose about their supposed SO's feelings. While I'm not sure of the OP and his SO's age (I think he said they were 27 and 25 respectively, but IDR) I think that Dear Johns while on a mission are accepted because those involved have not reached the age of accountability for these types of decisions. Perhaps that's the wrong term, but it's the one I have.
As for cases involving older people, I really don't know enough about how people work etc. to come up with a viable opinion (as I see it) but the way I see it, by then you should be old enough to work through things like civilized people, even if it is by letter or other long-distance communication, rather than just saying "Oh hey, I'm getting married to somebody else next week" or whatever other sort of things get said. however, in the OP's case, I think she could have waited the week needed to tell him in person. it's one week, for goodness sake.

... I (almost) literally just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, so that's going to be bouncing around in my head even more than it already was.

Assuming we believe the bible then we have the following:
(Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(Genesis 19:5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Following the biblical meaning of the word know (one of them, anyway) they can be safely assumed to reference the same thing. The first clearly states that it is an abomination. In the second, we're discussing the population of an entire city which was destroyed.
Maybe I'm just speaking in youthful ignorance (or whatever the term is, IDK) but it seems to me that we can safely say that it's quite clear here.

... I (almost) literally just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, so that's going to be bouncing around in my head even more than it already was.

And I'll thank you to try your crazy 'sleep enhancing' experiments on yourself first next time. Three days with no sleep is four days to many.

So much so that in many cases, we would rather be wrong in our beliefs than change them because they are ours, no matter the evidence against it.

So much so that in many cases, we would rather be wrong in our beliefs than change them because they are ours, no matter the evidence against it.

ah, thank you for explaining to me. The scriptures make a lot more sense when you have a context and some help don't you think?

a) Remember who it was that said he would remember your sins no more.
b) Remember whose brilliant idea it was to hide
c) Make up your mind now to never, ever hide from the one being in the universe who can help you, no matter what, no matter who, no matter how painful it might be, decide now to never, ever hide

Maybe because worrying takes quite a bit of time and energy to do properly?

Maybe because worrying takes quite a bit of time and energy to do properly?

skip Easter as a traditional holiday and make it a day of remembrance. We use mayday as our secular Easter celebratory day.

skip Easter as a traditional holiday and make it a day of remembrance. We use mayday as our secular Easter celebratory day.

this outlines most of the issues with how we get people who do these types of things IMHO. I think there's one other, but it's just out of mental reach.

If feeling safe is what peoples do when they enter a gun free zone I'd best stop trying to invent guns that identify the target before they shoot. I may or may not then invent a non lethal bullet. I'm not sure how I would go about that. hmm. wonder if there's something else I should do. oh yeah, figure out how to not feel like I'm doomed if somebody pulls a gun while I'm in the area. (no offense to those people who do this and don't intend to hurt anybody)

true, and I doubt that is his goal either.
 
It's not normal war per se, I'd say it's more of a shadow war, and whether he intends it or not, (and I think he does) These policies will drive this country to the ground as effectively as if we were in wwIII. The only issue is that people don't notice it for that, since we've grown to used to the idea that America is and always will be the amazing country it is/was. Because we aren't in open conflict, we turn a blind eye to it, noticing only the immediate issues that it brings, not recognizing the underlying possibilities.

you guys are starting to get off topic here. you know, just a touch

forgive me for preferring to read the actual thing instead of the children's version.

you guys are starting to get off topic here. you know, just a touch

every mag is a crippled cap......

The President is already on TV calling for more gun control, and making up excuses for why he's trying to politicize so soon after people have died. 
 
*headdesk*
 
Have some respect, people!