Just curious, which is the easiest?Quote:
Originally Posted by onlinemoniker
Printable View
Just curious, which is the easiest?Quote:
Originally Posted by onlinemoniker
* raises hand * I don't know whether to be disappointed so many people missed the reference or happy that people actually read my posts. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I was raised to not waste things. Regardless of whatever station I may achieve in life, I know I do not live alone. We all use the air and water around us. Resources are not limitless. No one has a legal right to waste and I believe there is a moral component to that as well. Any of us can be victims of bad luck or bad choices. And we live in a government of law because the alternative is not sufficiently appealing. I also was raised by my father to understand that it wasn't physical strength or aggressive behavior that made a boy a man (particularly a gentleman). Given that the world seems to do pretty well with these concepts and that the opposite has produced no end of problems, I'll stick with those beliefs.
A "penis-mobile" is any item (not necessarily a car or truck) that encourages someone to act with disregard for those around them.
Example: I ended up behind a huge pickup truck for several miles once; it was jacked up, the diesel engine had been tweaked to make more noise, and there was a huge exhaust stack plunked right in the middle of the bed so the driver could "roll coal" -- floor the accelerator at low revs to make huge amounts of black smoke pour out of the stack. There was a sticker on the back bumper, too, warning other drivers to not get too close or "feel my wrath". And the guy drove aggressively -- jackrabbit starts, lots of passing,...
Years after the encounter, I'm still unsure what the driver is trying to say about himself. Courtesy of that stack, he can't use that truck for its intended purpose. Rolling coal does not enhance fuel mileage and it certainly doesn't improve the air all of us breathe. If the driver intended to entertain us, he could have painted the truck neon green or put a moustache on the front. Only thing I can figure is that he thinks this presentation will enhance the appearance of his power and influence in the society in which he lives.
I don't buy it. Being a biological male depends on a certain amount of testosterone, sure, but I've never found swagger attractive in anyone. Too much of anything is ... too much. And it doesn't take huge body parts to be a leader, whether you've got 'em or not.
Ha ha. A "10 cylinder, 9 mpg motorhome" is not a "penis-mobile" unless it's what you use as a regular grocery-getter. It's fit to a task; it's used for that purpose. Or it sits, rusting silently. No problem at all with that. But that wasn't the point of your comment, was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Doesn't surprise me at all. IME "discussing" anything there became pointless. History lessons and ideology seemed to be used to dodge answering practical questions. I didn't see many attempts to reach a middle ground, just dismissive reductio ad absurdum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I am still waiting for a certain member still participating in this thread to provide practical suggestions on the issue of what to do with "liabilities". But I guess it's just easier to snicker and repeat talking points. In which case I'm done with this discussion, too.
I'm the one that said some are liabilities. You yourself mention that resources are not limitless. At some point we have to chose where our resources are spent. We are already making that choice. Thus some are sleeping in the park or under the bridge. That is their options at this time.
The first post on social capital by pcooley was interesting. I agree with a PP that everything we wear projects a particular message. Sometimes the message is very quiet as in: wearer doesn't care much about clothes and pulls on any old thing that is clean and that fits. Other messages are much louder, from the fashionista crowd.
One web site where I hang out has a thread right now about the social message of engagement rings. The poster is from a very wealthy family, old money, where the women in the family may each have 1 ring, usually a diamond, and it is heirloom. It's not ostentatious. This poster is marrying a self-made man in her own profession (she doesn't have to work, but chooses to work.) She told him "please go out and buy a ring for me and surprise me with it." Well he surprised her all right with--horror of horrors--a 1.5 carat solitaire from Tiffany & Co.
In her family Tiffany is considered to be a mall store. It is declasse'.
So now she has a dilemma--tell the BF that he flunked her "test?" He wasn't able to discern that she really wanted something very very simple and not new? He wasn't able to read the secret code of her values that you don't spend thousands on rings because no one values them UNLESS they are old and have a history?
Ugh, the games that women play. The poor guy probably figured that a nice diamond in a simple setting was appropriate for her. The poor guy will have a lifetime of this, he needs to re-think this marriage thing.
No it wasn't. The unsaid, yet implied point was that often, judgemental, blanket characterizations hit possibly unintended targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveinMN;170694[I
Quote:
Doesn't surprise me at all. IME "discussing" anything there became pointless. History lessons and ideology seemed to be used to dodge answering practical questions. I didn't see many attempts to reach a middle ground, just dismissive reductio ad absurdum.
However, continuing to have those same "discussions" in other threads where rebuttals of reductio ad absurdum are less common seems to me to invalidate the complaint that it's the particular forum at fault. That's where my "weird" observation comes in.
I can't speak for that person but I think you might find the continuing discussion, which moved to the other forum, to be enlightening. Of course I'm talking about the subject itself, not the thoughts or beliefs of any particular member, so it may not be as satisfying as you might wish.Quote:
I am still waiting for a certain member still participating in this thread to provide practical suggestions on the issue of what to do with "liabilities". But I guess it's just easier to snicker and repeat talking points. In which case I'm done with this discussion, too.
Speaking as a fan of the Public Policy forum, I'd love to see you engage over there.
SteveinMN-Based on your common sense and rational approach to these things, I am betting you are of Scandinavian heritage. I am reading a book now called the Almost Nearly Perfect People about the Scandinavian mindset. Overall, they don't tolerate waste or excess in themselves or others. DH and I joke about p---- cars or p----- houses quite a bit. There are just some people who feel the need to wear a big sign by virtue of their possessions. Lots of those honkin' big trucks down here in Texas.
Wow. I don't get it. I mean, I've seen women like that, but I still don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I know this is hard to believe but she actually sounds like a nice young women. She is well aware of her own family's snobbery and their secret status markers. But she wasn't aware that she sent her poor boyfriend out into the world with no information to navigate those same markers. She really wanted him to spend very little money in order to negate her upbringing. He tried to meet what he thought was her expectation, given her family background.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
So I think she's going to learn form this: open communicaiton is key.
I got my wife a lovely .270 Winchester hunting rifle as an engagement "ring", so we could go hunting together more often. She still has it, we're still together, neither of us own diamonds.
No diamonds here, either. Our anniversary gifts to each other are usually 10 yards of compost, a fruit tree, etc. This fall is our 10th wedding anniversary. We'll probably choose to travel somewhere inexpensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae