Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LMNO

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 2121
46
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: I wanna be a student, too!
« on: September 01, 2016, 04:25:26 pm »
At least you're doing it for a degree.

This stuff has literally NO application to either my work or any of my current hobbies.

I'm retaking algebra for FUN.

47
Any chance for a screenshot?

48
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: I wanna be a student, too!
« on: September 01, 2016, 11:59:52 am »
The first class is free...

49
Anything that has the moniker "Universal Solvent" is bad news, right out of the gate.

50
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: I wanna be a student, too!
« on: August 31, 2016, 10:41:06 pm »
It happened. I'm now voluntarily going through the Khan Academy algebra classes so I can then take Trig and Calc. All so I can figure out this System Dynamics stuff properly.

Well, at least it's not heroin.

52
So many appropriate Gene Wilder gifs to send him out on.


53
Agreed.  I made a go-ahead assumption that because FP did not want GF to talk about LTC1 or 2 and since we do not have her input/perspective, he had not yet communicated to her how he would be have if she accepted JO.

Also, because the initial question did not include, "do you think it's appropriate to terminate the relationship if she moves away?", I did not include it in my answers.  My answer would be a tentative "No", if such an question were posed, due to analysis 1, 2, and 5.

54
Is it selfish to want your significant other to avoid talking about marriage or kids if they are willing to give up that possibility for a long-distance, permanent job offer?

Because I don't have a problem with my girlfriend taking the job offer if it possibly means us not being together. I couldn't live with myself if I found out that I kept her from a successful job offer she considered. But is it selfish to want her to NOT bring up the idea of permanent commitments if she is willing to take that job at all costs? Could you marry or have kids with someone who would be willing to give that up for a job offer that ends your relationship? Am I just being an asshole?

I'm taking this back to the OP, because I feel like it can be broken down into fundamental components and questions.

Premises:
1. Girlfriend (GF) has a potential long distance job offer (JO).
2. Fernando Poo (FP) is employed locally.
3. GF wants to talk about marriage (Long Term Commitment 1 (LTC1)).
4. GF wants to talk about kids (Long Term Commitment 2 (LTC2)).

Assumptions (made by FP):
1. FP wants GF to take the JO if offered.
2. If GF takes the JO, the relationship will be over.

Questions posed:
1. Is it selfish to want GF not to talk about LTC1 or LTC2 if accepting JO precludes either?
2. Could the audience accept a similar scenario themselves?
3. Does FP asking Question 1 make him an asshole?

Analysis:
1. LTC1 and LTC2 are vastly different types of commitment.
2. JO does not automatically imply LTC1 and LTC2 are impossible.  Anecdotal evidence and relationship statistics show, I believe, that long-distance relationships are or can be stabilized by LTC1, if not LTC2.
3. Basic relationship guidelines generally say that a healthy relationship is made with more, not less, communication.
4. FP seems to have an unspoken belief that he is unwilling to enter into a long-distance relationship, based on Assumption 2.
5. GF appears to be weighing her decision in part on whether LTC1 or LTC2 will be possible if she takes JO.

Conclusions/Answers:
1. FP is being selfish for not wanting GF to talk about LTC1 or LTC2 if she takes JO.
         --Based on Assumption 1 and Analysis 3 and 5, FP is creating a scenario where a decision cannot be reached, extending the relationship status quo, however unhappily for GF.
2. Personally, this audience member rejects Assumption 2, therefore the question is invalid.
3. FP may not be an asshole, if Conclusion 1 was not understood initially.  If Conclusion 1 is understood, then yes.

55
Also, marriage and kids are waaaay different things. It might be her way of confirming you'd still be in a committed relationship even if she was away for a while. Or, she's pointing out that such a thing is impossible, and you should split as friends. I don't know enough about you two to tell.

58
Trolling Libertarians is much more fun and a lot easier when you remember they're just another flavor of Utopia, with all the same inherent structural failures.

59
Oh, yeah.  Run The Jewels is pretty amazing. I even tend to overlook El-P's tough-guy misogyny/homophobia because of his talent.

60
Here's where I'm coming from. Greed is an overreaction to the fear of having nothing. Think about common appeals to greed - "You'll never have to worry about bills again" - ie. waving the fear of debt in your face. Ignorance - fear of the unknown. Hate - fear of the other...

It's terrified primates all the way down.

Sure, but functionally your theory has a whiff of "we are all one".  If we accept that everything is fear based, we then necessarily have to clarify how that fear is presented or being manifested in order to resolve or exploit it.  Which leads us back into the OP and Cain's MICE.  So all you're really doing is adding an extra layer that doesn't have much practical use.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 2121