|
On September 25 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:Are guys arguing that arranged marriages and staying in unhappy marriages for decades is a good thing? >_> I honestly don't follow. It's early morning here. 
I'm saying time is a hell of a solution to problems.
Say that you're married for 50 years, and was happy in 26 of them, is that success or failure? What if you were happy in only 49 of them? Is that a failure? Should there be 100% happy years or fuck the marriage?
What if you were unhappy the first 15 years, but then happy the next 35 years? Is that success or failure?
What if you were happy the first 35 years, but it sucked the next 15 years? Success or failure?
What if you were happy for 10 years, had three kids, then was unhappy the next 40? Should you leave the kids because your sex life was sub par?
What if you got married, was happy for five years, decided to have one person work and the other pursue their dreams, and 10 years later you're unhappy. Except the partner has been out of work for the past 10 years without any good prospects. Do you then stay X years until the partner gets back to their feet? And what if in that time things got better? Except your partner is now bummed that he/she had to give up their dreams for X years because you got cranky that one time X years ago?
The truth is that its complicated. Sometimes traditions and rules allow things to happen that we would rather happen. Like lines of the road to better divide lanes of traffic. Does it also allow bad things to happen? Sure--hence why its complicated.
Or how about this--how many disagreements do you allow among people you say you love? One? Two? Twenty? Is there a cap? If you're willing to discard someone just because the world doesn't revolve around you--does that make you a winner?
There's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes ending the relationship is better in the long run, sometimes sticking with the relationship is better in the long run. And you only know in hindsight if you made the right decision--which sucks because there's no metric to determine the future.
|
On September 25 2016 23:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:Are guys arguing that arranged marriages and staying in unhappy marriages for decades is a good thing? >_> I honestly don't follow. It's early morning here. I'm saying time is a hell of a solution to problems. Say that you're married for 50 years, and was happy in 26 of them, is that success or failure? What if you were happy in only 49 of them? Is that a failure? Should there be 100% happy years or fuck the marriage? What if you were unhappy the first 15 years, but then happy the next 35 years? Is that success or failure? What if you were happy the first 35 years, but it sucked the next 15 years? Success or failure? What if you were happy for 10 years, had three kids, then was unhappy the next 40? Should you leave the kids because your sex life was sub par? What if you got married, was happy for five years, decided to have one person work and the other pursue their dreams, and 10 years later you're unhappy. Except the partner has been out of work for the past 10 years without any good prospects. Do you then stay X years until the partner gets back to their feet? And what if in that time things got better? Except your partner is now bummed that he/she had to give up their dreams for X years because you got cranky that one time X years ago? The truth is that its complicated. Sometimes traditions and rules allow things to happen that we would rather happen. Like lines of the road to better divide lanes of traffic. Does it also allow bad things to happen? Sure--hence why its complicated. Or how about this--how many disagreements do you allow among people you say you love? One? Two? Twenty? Is there a cap? If you're willing to discard someone just because the world doesn't revolve around you--does that make you a winner? There's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes ending the relationship is better in the long run, sometimes sticking with the relationship is better in the long run. And you only know in hindsight if you made the right decision--which sucks because there's no metric to determine the future.
If you've been in an unhappy relationship for 15 years, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it'll turn around. Do you know anyone that happened to?
I agree that if the only problem is infrequent sex, but you work well as friends otherwise, and you got like 6 year old kids, then there is an argument to stay together for the kids sake. Not sure I'd call that an unhappy marriages even, but let's not get stuck on semantics. But if it's a relationship that really doesn't work, with fighting and so on, then you are not helping your kids by staying together imo. This view probably comes from my Swedish culture where divorce really isn't a big deal, but I think that divorced happy parents are easily better for the kids than unhappy parents staying together.
I'm also part Italian, which is a much more traditional country when it comes to divorces. I have relatives that indeed have stayed decades in (really) unhappy relationships. It just makes everyone involved depressed constantly, parents and their kids... the only reason the guy didn't leave his wife was a heavy social pressure. This is all anecdotal of course, but I really don't see that as a system that makes people more happy.
|
On September 26 2016 08:32 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:Are guys arguing that arranged marriages and staying in unhappy marriages for decades is a good thing? >_> I honestly don't follow. It's early morning here. I'm saying time is a hell of a solution to problems. Say that you're married for 50 years, and was happy in 26 of them, is that success or failure? What if you were happy in only 49 of them? Is that a failure? Should there be 100% happy years or fuck the marriage? What if you were unhappy the first 15 years, but then happy the next 35 years? Is that success or failure? What if you were happy the first 35 years, but it sucked the next 15 years? Success or failure? What if you were happy for 10 years, had three kids, then was unhappy the next 40? Should you leave the kids because your sex life was sub par? What if you got married, was happy for five years, decided to have one person work and the other pursue their dreams, and 10 years later you're unhappy. Except the partner has been out of work for the past 10 years without any good prospects. Do you then stay X years until the partner gets back to their feet? And what if in that time things got better? Except your partner is now bummed that he/she had to give up their dreams for X years because you got cranky that one time X years ago? The truth is that its complicated. Sometimes traditions and rules allow things to happen that we would rather happen. Like lines of the road to better divide lanes of traffic. Does it also allow bad things to happen? Sure--hence why its complicated. Or how about this--how many disagreements do you allow among people you say you love? One? Two? Twenty? Is there a cap? If you're willing to discard someone just because the world doesn't revolve around you--does that make you a winner? There's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes ending the relationship is better in the long run, sometimes sticking with the relationship is better in the long run. And you only know in hindsight if you made the right decision--which sucks because there's no metric to determine the future. If you've been in an unhappy relationship for 15 years, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it'll turn around. Do you know anyone that happened to? I agree that if the only problem is infrequent sex, but you work well as friends otherwise, and you got like 6 year old kids, then there is an argument to stay together for the kids sake. Not sure I'd call that an unhappy marriages even, but let's not get stuck on semantics. But if it's a relationship that really doesn't work, with fighting and so on, then you are not helping your kids by staying together imo. This view probably comes from my Swedish culture where divorce really isn't a big deal, but I think that divorced happy parents are easily better for the kids than unhappy parents staying together. I'm also part Italian, which is a much more traditional country when it comes to divorces. I have relatives that indeed have stayed decades in (really) unhappy relationships. It just makes everyone involved depressed constantly, parents and their kids... the only reason the guy didn't leave his wife was a heavy social pressure. This is all anecdotal of course, but I really don't see that as a system that makes people more happy.
Of course I've seen relationships turn around. Both from married and unmarried couples. Its happening around you as well but you most likely just don't see and assume the seemingly happy couples around you have always been 100% happy.
|
On September 26 2016 10:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 08:32 Cascade wrote:On September 25 2016 23:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:Are guys arguing that arranged marriages and staying in unhappy marriages for decades is a good thing? >_> I honestly don't follow. It's early morning here. I'm saying time is a hell of a solution to problems. Say that you're married for 50 years, and was happy in 26 of them, is that success or failure? What if you were happy in only 49 of them? Is that a failure? Should there be 100% happy years or fuck the marriage? What if you were unhappy the first 15 years, but then happy the next 35 years? Is that success or failure? What if you were happy the first 35 years, but it sucked the next 15 years? Success or failure? What if you were happy for 10 years, had three kids, then was unhappy the next 40? Should you leave the kids because your sex life was sub par? What if you got married, was happy for five years, decided to have one person work and the other pursue their dreams, and 10 years later you're unhappy. Except the partner has been out of work for the past 10 years without any good prospects. Do you then stay X years until the partner gets back to their feet? And what if in that time things got better? Except your partner is now bummed that he/she had to give up their dreams for X years because you got cranky that one time X years ago? The truth is that its complicated. Sometimes traditions and rules allow things to happen that we would rather happen. Like lines of the road to better divide lanes of traffic. Does it also allow bad things to happen? Sure--hence why its complicated. Or how about this--how many disagreements do you allow among people you say you love? One? Two? Twenty? Is there a cap? If you're willing to discard someone just because the world doesn't revolve around you--does that make you a winner? There's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes ending the relationship is better in the long run, sometimes sticking with the relationship is better in the long run. And you only know in hindsight if you made the right decision--which sucks because there's no metric to determine the future. If you've been in an unhappy relationship for 15 years, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it'll turn around. Do you know anyone that happened to? I agree that if the only problem is infrequent sex, but you work well as friends otherwise, and you got like 6 year old kids, then there is an argument to stay together for the kids sake. Not sure I'd call that an unhappy marriages even, but let's not get stuck on semantics. But if it's a relationship that really doesn't work, with fighting and so on, then you are not helping your kids by staying together imo. This view probably comes from my Swedish culture where divorce really isn't a big deal, but I think that divorced happy parents are easily better for the kids than unhappy parents staying together. I'm also part Italian, which is a much more traditional country when it comes to divorces. I have relatives that indeed have stayed decades in (really) unhappy relationships. It just makes everyone involved depressed constantly, parents and their kids... the only reason the guy didn't leave his wife was a heavy social pressure. This is all anecdotal of course, but I really don't see that as a system that makes people more happy. Of course I've seen relationships turn around. Both from married and unmarried couples. Its happening around you as well but you most likely just don't see and assume the seemingly happy couples around you have always been 100% happy.
relationships being bad for several years and then turning around?
It'd be interesting to hear some of those stories if you don't mind sharing. 
|
If a VPN says:
5 devices simultaneously
(https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/)
Does that mean I could split the cost with four friends, and we could all use one connection each simultaneously whenever we want?
|
|
|
|
|
On that note, that's a quality VPN, speaking from experience
|
Is it weird to consider linguicism(Linguistic discrimination) worse than racism?
|
On September 27 2016 03:43 Thouhastmail wrote:
Is it weird to consider linguicism(Linguistic discrimination) worse than racism?
Somewhat. It's odd to consider one form of discrimination worse than another, especially since linguicism has rarely been as virulent (though you could argue that it is as common as [and often is tied to]) racism.
|
Norway28874 Posts
On September 27 2016 03:43 Thouhastmail wrote:
Is it weird to consider linguicism(Linguistic discrimination) worse than racism?
I never thought about it before, but I'm immediately inclined to think that this problem affects asians more than people from other places. Also have no problems accepting that being discriminated against based on accent sucks (I had a speech impediment when I was a kid, and most of my close friends still call me by the nickname this speech impediment garnered me), but I also have a hard time accepting that it's as bad as being discriminated against based on your appearance. If anything, because you actually have to speak before linguicism comes into effect - old fashioned skin-color racism discriminates you even faster and more consistently.
|
On September 27 2016 04:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 03:43 Thouhastmail wrote:
Is it weird to consider linguicism(Linguistic discrimination) worse than racism?
Also have no problems accepting that being discriminated against based on accent sucks
quite off topic, but people mock my aussie accent - Koreans only regard valleyspeak accent and that drives me crazy.
|
Hmm, yeah it just sounded too good to be true, even though everything pointed towards it.
I think that's what I'll do then, $40/year split between 5 people for good connection speeds, that's just insane.
|
On September 27 2016 03:43 Thouhastmail wrote:
Is it weird to consider linguicism(Linguistic discrimination) worse than racism?
Because you feel subjected to it?
While discrimination is always bad, you could argue that maybe racism is slightly worse, as you are born into it and can't do anything about it. While if you really try and put in the time, most people can pick up new languages or accents. I'm not really sure why that would make it milder actually, but well... it's a difference at least? Thoughts?
|
|
|
On September 27 2016 07:17 JimmiC wrote:
Stereotypes in general are bad. Sadly we don't have the processing power to not have them and it is innate in us from back in the survival days. For example "maybe we should see if this lion is gonna eat us and not generalize all lions" would have worked out badly. The best we can do is do our best to not hold negative stereo types and also try to not be the negative stereotype that our particular group is known for.
Yes, stereotypes can be bad. But I don't think we can just tell ourselves to stop having preconceptions. Not how the mind works. What we can do though, is to be aware of them and compensate for them.
And I also don't think an individual should feel additional pressure to not behave a certain way because it happens to fit the stereotype of some group the individual is part of.
|
On September 27 2016 03:43 Thouhastmail wrote:
Is it weird to consider linguicism(Linguistic discrimination) worse than racism?
I don't know if "worse" is the word to use. Its different. It possible for you to care more about one ism than another--that's what special interests groups are usually. Its also not mutually exclusive. Like, you could be against Linguicism AND against racism.
|
On September 26 2016 13:50 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 10:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 26 2016 08:32 Cascade wrote:On September 25 2016 23:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:Are guys arguing that arranged marriages and staying in unhappy marriages for decades is a good thing? >_> I honestly don't follow. It's early morning here. I'm saying time is a hell of a solution to problems. Say that you're married for 50 years, and was happy in 26 of them, is that success or failure? What if you were happy in only 49 of them? Is that a failure? Should there be 100% happy years or fuck the marriage? What if you were unhappy the first 15 years, but then happy the next 35 years? Is that success or failure? What if you were happy the first 35 years, but it sucked the next 15 years? Success or failure? What if you were happy for 10 years, had three kids, then was unhappy the next 40? Should you leave the kids because your sex life was sub par? What if you got married, was happy for five years, decided to have one person work and the other pursue their dreams, and 10 years later you're unhappy. Except the partner has been out of work for the past 10 years without any good prospects. Do you then stay X years until the partner gets back to their feet? And what if in that time things got better? Except your partner is now bummed that he/she had to give up their dreams for X years because you got cranky that one time X years ago? The truth is that its complicated. Sometimes traditions and rules allow things to happen that we would rather happen. Like lines of the road to better divide lanes of traffic. Does it also allow bad things to happen? Sure--hence why its complicated. Or how about this--how many disagreements do you allow among people you say you love? One? Two? Twenty? Is there a cap? If you're willing to discard someone just because the world doesn't revolve around you--does that make you a winner? There's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes ending the relationship is better in the long run, sometimes sticking with the relationship is better in the long run. And you only know in hindsight if you made the right decision--which sucks because there's no metric to determine the future. If you've been in an unhappy relationship for 15 years, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it'll turn around. Do you know anyone that happened to? I agree that if the only problem is infrequent sex, but you work well as friends otherwise, and you got like 6 year old kids, then there is an argument to stay together for the kids sake. Not sure I'd call that an unhappy marriages even, but let's not get stuck on semantics. But if it's a relationship that really doesn't work, with fighting and so on, then you are not helping your kids by staying together imo. This view probably comes from my Swedish culture where divorce really isn't a big deal, but I think that divorced happy parents are easily better for the kids than unhappy parents staying together. I'm also part Italian, which is a much more traditional country when it comes to divorces. I have relatives that indeed have stayed decades in (really) unhappy relationships. It just makes everyone involved depressed constantly, parents and their kids... the only reason the guy didn't leave his wife was a heavy social pressure. This is all anecdotal of course, but I really don't see that as a system that makes people more happy. Of course I've seen relationships turn around. Both from married and unmarried couples. Its happening around you as well but you most likely just don't see and assume the seemingly happy couples around you have always been 100% happy. relationships being bad for several years and then turning around? It'd be interesting to hear some of those stories if you don't mind sharing.
Most are from family. Uncles or aunts that get all angry at each other and some even get divorced, not live with each other for years and years only to then come back together after some time and remarry.
In the Philippines divorce isn't even allowed so a lot of folks "break up" and start living with other people for decades sometimes, but since property is still shared and rights are still shared they keep in touch and after decades some even get back together. It definitely happens.
And then there's the other side of the coin, happy relationships turns sour after decades whether due to illness or whatever. It could be something extreme like Alzheimer but it could even be something less so like a leg injury where the person is just permanently less mobile. Some people are willing to end 40-50 years of good just because they foresee 10-15 years of bad. More traditional folks are forced to stay and take care of their partner because "tradition" and less traditional folks freak out and either put the partner in a home or just leave.
Not to say that traditional > non-traditional, just saying that it gets complicated when add decades upon decades on the timeline.
|
On September 27 2016 23:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 13:50 Cascade wrote:On September 26 2016 10:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 26 2016 08:32 Cascade wrote:On September 25 2016 23:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:Are guys arguing that arranged marriages and staying in unhappy marriages for decades is a good thing? >_> I honestly don't follow. It's early morning here. I'm saying time is a hell of a solution to problems. Say that you're married for 50 years, and was happy in 26 of them, is that success or failure? What if you were happy in only 49 of them? Is that a failure? Should there be 100% happy years or fuck the marriage? What if you were unhappy the first 15 years, but then happy the next 35 years? Is that success or failure? What if you were happy the first 35 years, but it sucked the next 15 years? Success or failure? What if you were happy for 10 years, had three kids, then was unhappy the next 40? Should you leave the kids because your sex life was sub par? What if you got married, was happy for five years, decided to have one person work and the other pursue their dreams, and 10 years later you're unhappy. Except the partner has been out of work for the past 10 years without any good prospects. Do you then stay X years until the partner gets back to their feet? And what if in that time things got better? Except your partner is now bummed that he/she had to give up their dreams for X years because you got cranky that one time X years ago? The truth is that its complicated. Sometimes traditions and rules allow things to happen that we would rather happen. Like lines of the road to better divide lanes of traffic. Does it also allow bad things to happen? Sure--hence why its complicated. Or how about this--how many disagreements do you allow among people you say you love? One? Two? Twenty? Is there a cap? If you're willing to discard someone just because the world doesn't revolve around you--does that make you a winner? There's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes ending the relationship is better in the long run, sometimes sticking with the relationship is better in the long run. And you only know in hindsight if you made the right decision--which sucks because there's no metric to determine the future. If you've been in an unhappy relationship for 15 years, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it'll turn around. Do you know anyone that happened to? I agree that if the only problem is infrequent sex, but you work well as friends otherwise, and you got like 6 year old kids, then there is an argument to stay together for the kids sake. Not sure I'd call that an unhappy marriages even, but let's not get stuck on semantics. But if it's a relationship that really doesn't work, with fighting and so on, then you are not helping your kids by staying together imo. This view probably comes from my Swedish culture where divorce really isn't a big deal, but I think that divorced happy parents are easily better for the kids than unhappy parents staying together. I'm also part Italian, which is a much more traditional country when it comes to divorces. I have relatives that indeed have stayed decades in (really) unhappy relationships. It just makes everyone involved depressed constantly, parents and their kids... the only reason the guy didn't leave his wife was a heavy social pressure. This is all anecdotal of course, but I really don't see that as a system that makes people more happy. Of course I've seen relationships turn around. Both from married and unmarried couples. Its happening around you as well but you most likely just don't see and assume the seemingly happy couples around you have always been 100% happy. relationships being bad for several years and then turning around? It'd be interesting to hear some of those stories if you don't mind sharing. Most are from family. Uncles or aunts that get all angry at each other and some even get divorced, not live with each other for years and years only to then come back together after some time and remarry. In the Philippines divorce isn't even allowed so a lot of folks "break up" and start living with other people for decades sometimes, but since property is still shared and rights are still shared they keep in touch and after decades some even get back together. It definitely happens. And then there's the other side of the coin, happy relationships turns sour after decades whether due to illness or whatever. It could be something extreme like Alzheimer but it could even be something less so like a leg injury where the person is just permanently less mobile. Some people are willing to end 40-50 years of good just because they foresee 10-15 years of bad. More traditional folks are forced to stay and take care of their partner because "tradition" and less traditional folks freak out and either put the partner in a home or just leave. Not to say that traditional > non-traditional, just saying that it gets complicated when add decades upon decades on the timeline.
Thanks! Maybe a break for a decade or two can make people grow into more of a match. I was mainly thinking of staying together despite having issues, but that's not really what your meant maybe. I realise this is impossible for you to answer, but do you think they would've grown together again if they had been forced to stay together for that time?
I have a few Italian relatives that I know have been in fairly miserable marriages for decades, and socially/culturally/religiously not really allowed to divorce. So that is where I am coming from.
|
are there big spiders or scorpions in New Zealand, like Australia? if yes, are they common like, can I encounter one in urban homes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
