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

401–410 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#401

Post by eanzenberg »

fizixer wrote: post #166
joshkaufman wrote: post #66

I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update: My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.) No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City bri…

Would you confirm or deny my two hunches: - Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high) - Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial". Also in your article, you do…

1st is incorrect.. Lab-grown of the same quality are more expensive than natural diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#402

Post by lqdc13 »

digitaltrees wrote: post #64
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #34

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche…

Check out this article, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how... It shows how the concept of diamond engagement rings were completely invented by a specific ad campaign; first in America and now expanding to the rest of the world. They were specifically trying to create social pressure to buy the most expensive ring possible; to reinforce the impression that a diamond ring demonstrated wealth a…

Everyone knows about it and yet everyone does it.

It is like getting a luxury brand car or a watch or living in a certain part of town. All aren't practical.

When social pressure is already there, you are asking the female partner to break the norm which can be tough.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#403

Post by mythrwy »

nikatwork wrote: post #384
mythrwy wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you teaching me a lesson? Or trolling? Real question. Because your approach isn't very constructive.

The guy apologized and maybe he thought his advice was good. I admit though it was blunt and the part about divorce was rude.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#404

Post by schrodinger »

Grishnakh wrote: post #314
eyko wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horse meat is quite normal in western culture, unless if by western culture you mean anglophone countries.

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 think hes saying that it's absurd to not eat horse for reasons other than taste or texture, which would agree with what you're saying

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#405

Post by [deleted] »

Grishnakh wrote: post #314
eyko wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horse meat is quite normal in western culture, unless if by western culture you mean anglophone countries.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#406

Post by krisdol »

dimino wrote: post #213
ftrflyr wrote: post #96

I told my girlfriend (5 years) how I feel about diamonds and that I reject the very notion of buying a diamond engagement / wedding ring early on in our relationship. Several months ago, we landed on the marriage conversation, again. I reiterated that I am against diamond engagement bands. She then said: "What about a wedding ring then?" I told her it applies to wedding rings as well. We got into a heated argument an…

This isn't really a place for relationship advice, but to frame it in the context of a startup, if a founder just won't talk about a decision you both need to make together, that's a huge red flag that maybe going into business with this person isn't the best idea. I haven't gone through this myself, but I've read that part of picking a great founder is finding someone you can talk through issues with, even if they'r…

Take it from another perspective, this is more like a cofounder (or really, two cofounders) being so headstrong that he won't budge on his opinion for the good of the company.

If you explain clearly your viewpoints on diamonds, where those viewpoints are rooted, and the partner doesn't agree even after understanding your viewpoint, then you should consider compromising.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#407

Post by joesb »

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…

Unless your children keep having sex with their siblings as well, just pair of incest marriage doesn't actually have significant risk of genetic consequences.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#408

Post by lotharbot »

user5994461 wrote: post #138
DanBC wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in my comment is saying that buying an expensive ring will save a marriage. I'm only saying that if your marriage lasts for 10 years, which about 66% of them do, it's weird to complain about the cost of a ring when there will be very many more expensive and equally bullshit things to spend or not spend on.

The divorce rate is increasing every day. One shouldn't based a decision on outdated marriage statistics from 10 years ago. Just sayin'

the divorce rate has actually been falling steadily since about 1980.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#409

Post by joesb »

Grishnakh wrote: post #310
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"? I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her…

So even without that "red neon warning sign" you marriage still didn't work.

Or may be, just may be, wanting diamond is just normal for some women, and it doesn't indicate whether she is a good couple or not.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#410

Post by gech »

morgante wrote: post #282
Can_Not wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.

> Why do we need signals? Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal. You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is only useful as a signal. The…

> Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away.

No, we try to make the case for the waste and stupidity, and when a group still can not come to terms with it, we shame them.

Post reply on HN