Maybe she wanted a daughter, but more likely she wants a healthy relationship with her future daughter-in-law.
When I was engaged, my Mom and my sister took my fiancée out to lunch to have some "get to know you" time. (We lived 9 hours drive from them, and we had a quick courtship, so they had not had a chance to meet her before this.) It went a long ways to getting things off on the right foot.

Thanks! I've actually been using this screen name for a while. It just seemed like a good fit. :)

Pretty much. Plus, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler celebrated because he thought that this would prompt the US to go after Japan instead of coming to Europe.

Thank you! If/when I can put it all together, I will link it here. :)

What we have here is a debate that has its origin in two different world views. I am reminded of the painting "The School of Athens," by Rapheal. In the center of this painting are Plato and Aristotle, with Plato pointing up and Aristotle with his hand reaching out. Plato held the position that right and wrong was based on some universal code, while Aristotle held that right and wrong were determined by the impact on the world around us.
From our discussion, it appears that I am taking Plato's side, and you and @bethorian are taking Aristotle's side.
Question: I am in the process of making some teaching videos on various subjects, and one of them is going to be on how our decision making is based on our world view. Would you have any objection to me using this discussion as an example?

We are starting to find some common ground here. What I see are two different discussions:
First : Would it be wise for businesses like Netfli and Disney allow password sharing? If they did so, would it be to their financial benefit?
Second: Given that they currently do not allow password sharing, are people justified in doing so anyway?
I would suggest that the answer to the first one could very well be yes, depending on the setup and market conditions.
However, on the second, I would stand by my original assessment: no, they are not justified in doing so. If you are going to derive benefit from a service, you need to support that service. After, as you say, we are talking about "just entertainment," not something that is essential for life, even if, as you are certainly correct in pointing out, it's not costing these businesses huge amounts of money.
Cheers!

I agree with everything you have written here. However, password sharing is still "theft of services." You are getting something for free when the provider of said services is expecting its customers to actually pay for the service.
Another analogy would be hopping a city bus without paying the fare. Technically, the city is not out any money for having one more person on board, paid or not. Yet you are still utilizing someone else's resources without compensating them. It costs money to maintain a bus system, just like it costs money to maintain a streaming system, and to use either system without supporting it is simply wrong.

Oh I read it, I just don't buy any of it.
While an intelligent case can be made for such things as "piracy is not really a bad thing," you are still stuck with the fact that by sharing passwords you are not only violating the terms of service which you agreed to when you signed up, you are also helping someone steal from the service in question.
In other words, while a solid argument can be made that a company such as Disney or Netflix would benefit from allowing customers to share their passwords with friends, they have chosen not to do so. This is their prerogative.
If you share your password with someone outside your household, you are giving something away without the permission of the owner, which is a kind of theft.

You can type all day long, but at the end of the day, stealing is still stealing. If you password share, you are getting something from someone without paying the expected fee. Just because it is commonly done and people routinely get away with it doesn't make it any less wrong.

Really? You think?

@bethorien, You may be thinking WW1. What you posted pretty much sums up US involvement in that war.
As for WW2, when the US officially joined the war in December of 1941, Germany and Japan were at the height of their power, in terms of real estate under their control. Unoffically, the US had been providing materials to Britain and the USSR for quite some times, but until Pearl Harbor, we didn't have a legitimate reason to join the actual fighting.
While a good case can be made that Germany was primarily defeated by the USSR, Japan was defeated by the US pretty much on its own.