Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#381

Post by cmdrfred »

woodman wrote: post #275
Ironchefpython wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. Think about it like eating dogs. There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat, but most Westerners would throw a hissy fit rather than eat dog meat. So don't assume the prospective bride is unreasonable. In fact, assume the opposite, as she was able to read a rational explanation of the iss…

> There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat... Yes there is, unless you would make the same argument for having sex with relatives - which philosophers have rationalized against for thousands of years (way before the genetic consequences were understood). Morality is a rationalization. Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten. Diamonds don't even come close, there i…

"Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten."

I take it you've never met a cow, horse, pig, chicken or tame deer. Most animals will befriend humans if you are patient enough.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#382

Post by snuxoll »

stephencanon wrote: post #118
jakewins wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wife and I had read the Atlantic article before it was too late, went with plain wedding bands for both of us. However, living in America, this is causing issues for her, continuously having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond. We'd been looking for used rings as an alternative - hence, thank you very much for writing this, you just saved me and my wife several thousand dollars.

> having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond. I don't think this is a universal "in America" thing. Maybe in some parts of the country, but here in the northeast it seems like it's none of their business; I can't imagine asking someone to explain it, and I would think someone who did ask was being awfully nosy. FWIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can…

Fuck, my wife and I are in possession of my parents gold (+small diamond) band and rings and wore them during our courtroom marriage ceremony - but we switched to tungsten rings with a carbon fiber inlay because the gold was too fragile and the wife kept scratching everything (including our daughter) with the diamond.

We're much happier with $20 disposable rings (both of us have lost one already); no fear of loss or damage and it gets the point across fine- hell, when I proposed to her I didn't even have a ring, we would have done it this way in the first place.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#383

Post by floodyberry- »

vpayette wrote: post #97

We were engaged in 2006 and I forwarded that article to my soon to be wife. Her answer was: I don't think this is funny. I ended up buying a 10k diamond ring. We're still happily married with 1 beautiful 8 y.o. daughter. Ask any married guy and they'll all say the same: pick your battles!

It sounds more that both of you are [insanely lucky to be / oblivious of being] well off rather than that you're gifted with exceptional knowledge about marriage.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#384

Post by nikatwork »

mythrwy wrote: post #354
ejcx wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-negotiable was a bad choice of words. It's been very negotiable. She just really didn't want cubic because of the perception, like someone else had noted. It's just a little ridiculous to read 3 sentences a stranger types and tells them they are going to get a divorce. Bad form as far as unsolicited advice goes.

I think he was trying to help (even if misguided) and besides he apologized. You could be gracious about it.

Hey mythrwy are you pregnant, you're looking a lot bigger? And also you should dump your partner because they conform to mainstream social standards, total red flag. Oh and you're raising your kids wrong.

Hey why are you offended? I was trying to help! You could be gracious about it.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#385

Post by chii »

Chris2048 wrote: post #52
m1aw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what annoys me. The geek and idealist in me doesn't want to give her a diamond because it's not that valuable. Yet, I don't want to be cheap. I don't want her to feel like I don't value her enough.

> I don't want to be cheap Why not get something expensive, yet valuable then?

Such as? Jewellery is inherently not valuable!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#386

Post by JadeNB »

digitaltrees wrote: post #27
omribahumi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reading this, just show it to her. It says people can't spot the difference.

Lying is a great way to start a relationship. Then when she goes to get the ring insured or tries to add it to your homeowners or renters insurance and the appraisal comes back you can have the informed, rational discussion of your thought process with no fall out. Just in case someone wants to avoid that approach, it might be helpful to have some specific arguments. I think it is good to point out what you could use…

> > From reading this, just show it to her. It says people can't spot the difference.

> Lying is a great way to start a relationship.

It sounded to me like the advice was "show her the fake diamond, so that she can see that it's visually indistinguishable from a real one" rather than "present her the fake diamond as a real one".

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#387

Post by burfog »

vxNsr wrote: post #371
burfog wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That tradition is news to me. As far as I knew, the tradition is to give a ring with a stone (commonly diamond) for engagement, and then a plain band for the wedding. Once married, only the plain band is worn. The reason: stones can snag on clothing, rip an eyeball, snap off, attract violence, or scratch something you care about. I went with my birthstone (Arizona Peridot, cheap and pretty) from my grandma for the en…

I've never heard of your tradition before, where are you from?

My mom was born around 1951 in San Francisco to parents raised there and in the central valley. My dad was born around 1946 in San Mateo to parents from Iowa and I forget. The ancestry is Catholic from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and similar.

The engagement ring is fancy. The wedding band is plain. The wedding band is always worn. The engagement ring could be worn, but that is optional. My mom wore hers often enough that it and the wedding band ground each other away and eventually had to be soldered together. So you don't have to always keep the engagement ring in a box, but you might, and wearing it is totally optional. The wedding ring pretty much never comes off.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#388

Post by woodman »

cmdrfred wrote: post #381
woodman wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat... Yes there is, unless you would make the same argument for having sex with relatives - which philosophers have rationalized against for thousands of years (way before the genetic consequences were understood). Morality is a rationalization. Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten. Diamonds don't even come close, there i…

"Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten." I take it you've never met a cow, horse, pig, chicken or tame deer. Most animals will befriend humans if you are patient enough.

All those animals were domesticated for very different reasons. I've spent a lot of time with horses, my family had three, and they're great animals - but they don't come anywhere close to dogs when it comes to trust and the ability to read people. I've seen dogs trained with nothing more than praise - the desire to please is that strong for them. That doesn't work for horses.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#389

Post by kkoomi »

aquadrop wrote: post #253
ejcx wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you. There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.

> Cubic is cheap and tacky Why the fact it's cheap makes it tacky? There's plenty of good CZ jewelry and 99% of people won't know the difference with diamonds or moissanite if you don't tell them. Moassanite is good, but still way too much expensive than it should be. It would be fun if we chose homes same way - "Oh, that big house with large lot, fireplace, etc is perfect in every way for us, but it's 30 times cheap…

The house analogy isn't really working for me.. An almost same house gives 99% of all the important value, but a non-diamond ring isn't the same since it's still a pretty big mental and societal shift one has to deal with.

That does sound better, spending the saved money on 4x$2000 amazing trips together, or 2x$4000 SUPER trips. Priceless memories that would easily be higher value than a nice rock.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#390

Post by Grishnakh »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #347
Grishnakh wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason, but why is it "absurd" to not want to eat horse for texture reasons? My understanding is that horse meat generally does not taste that good and is very tough, because those animals get a lot of exercise; it's like deer meat. Some people like venison, and there's no stigma attached to eating it, but it's hard to buy because demand is low (and they're not raised as lives…

> I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason On deeply nested comments, if it hasn't been long since the post was made you have to click the "permalink" ("XX minutes ago" or "XX hours ago") link to reply. I think the extra step is to help slow down flamewars ("do I really need to reply to this comment, right now?".

Thanks for the info, that's very useful.

If this is the intention, it seems like it'd make more sense to throw up roadblocks to only someone else who's in the comment chain, rather than to someone who hasn't been involved at all and is just chiming in. Usually, those flamewars are long chains of comments between two people.

Post reply on HN