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

561–570 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#561

Post by jakewins »

alasdair_ wrote: post #560
jakewins wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The friends I'm mentioning are a married homosexual couple; if the federal gov't stops recognizing their marriage, the non-citizen wife would lose grounds for residency. I still want to address this though: > Is it so much to ask visitors to our country to follow our laws? I think this is a very strange thing to say. Obviously, if someone intentionally violates visas to stay here illegally, deportation is appropriate…

> As the law currently stands, you can now be deported, and your 2-year old would become a ward of the state, with the usual probabilities of success of those programs. There is a proposal to allow you to stay in the country to raise the kid, DAPA. Trump has said he will strike that down. >Eg: This is not about you breaking the law; it's about whether your children can be held accountable for it. Out of interest, wou…

To be clear: I'm not saying I support DAPA, I'm saying that and DACA are the two immediate scenarios that were on the table for the election.

As I noted in my comment, I do support DACA.

For exactly the reason you state above, I'm not sure how I feel about DAPA: The same moral problem (of removing a parent from a childs life) exists in any scenario where a parent commits a jail or deportation-eligible non-violent crime.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#562

Post by grkvlt »

liquidcool wrote: post #473
occamrazor wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really a thing in the US? In Italy (and AFAIK in most of Europe) wedding rings are normally plain gold (rarely white or red gold, or platinum) bands. Engagement rings do have a stone, but they are not worn every day.

It was that way in the US for a very long time. Sometime in the last couple decades a new trend arose to wear both the engagement ring and a wedding band together. The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry, so it's silly to only wear it during the engagement. (Whether it's silly to spend that much in the first place is another argument.) I don't know if they are in fashion currently, but many jeweler…

It's pretty much always been the case that a married woman would wear both her engagement and wedding ring? There's even long-standing etiquette about the order in which they should be placed on the finger - engagement first, I believe? It certainly isn't something new since the 1990s.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#563

Post by Grishnakh »

Grishnakh wrote: post #559
somestag wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I don't understand how you make the jump from "wants a possession" to "deserves to be treated as a possession." Even if we accept that wanting a diamond ring would make her dumb (and I don't accept that), it still wouldn't warrant treating her like property. That seems like an awfully dehumanizing perspective to hold. Second, the fact that the tradition is a modern one, that started with an advertising cam…

She deserves to be treated as a possession because somehow the man is expected to shell out all of HIS money for this stupid rock, solely for her benefit. What exactly is SHE contributing to the relationship anyway? Obviously, she has nothing to contribute except being a possession, so she should act like this, because this is the role she is demanding. After all, why isn't SHE blowing 3 months' worth of her pay on s…

I love how questioning a sexist tradition earns me downvotes.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#564

Post by Grishnakh »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #364
Grishnakh wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain. Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering…

You may be right, but "Don't be worried that the president has promised to do horrible, horrible things--he was probably just lying to make racists happy, and anyway he changes his mind at the drop of a hat!" is not exactly encouraging.

No, it's not. Sorry.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#565

Post by grkvlt »

coldpie wrote: post #514
liquidcool wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was that way in the US for a very long time. Sometime in the last couple decades a new trend arose to wear both the engagement ring and a wedding band together. The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry, so it's silly to only wear it during the engagement. (Whether it's silly to spend that much in the first place is another argument.) I don't know if they are in fashion currently, but many jeweler…

> The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring? Fuck. When we got engaged, we shopped together and I bought her a black opal ring. Diamond was never on the menu, so I never even looked at their prices. I knew diamonds were expensive, but I had no idea the extent to which people were getting suckered.

> Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring?

No, of course not - why would you think that? Those 'high priced' rings are like the wax fruit in a greengrocer, or plastic lobsters at the fishmongers - just there for show...!

Back in the real world, people can actually spend hundreds of thousands, even millions, on jewelry.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#566

Post by grkvlt »

mcv wrote: post #500

"dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring" How much?! Do people really spend that much on an engagement ring? Here they're a few hundred euro at most. Unless you're a millionaire or like to pretend to be, perhaps. I would say that if you need to have a big stone in your engagement ring at all, you're still a slave of the old De Beers advertising campaign. You may outsmart them on the product, but you're s…

Yes, people do spend that much. I'm not sure what kind of virtue signalling people think they are achieving when they fake this kind of incredulity. People will spend a fuck ton of money on things they think are pretty, or unique.

But what sort of idiot would want an original Picasso or Van Goch, for example, when they can just get a digital print to put up on their wall that looks almost identical? If you're the sort of person who likes original artwork, you're really just a slave to the Christies and Bonhams marketing...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#567

Post by dagw »

jandrese wrote: post #555
dagw wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and AFAIK in most of Europe In Sweden at least it seems to be quite common to wear both rings. However it also seems to be more common to have inset stones, rather than one that sticks out. I've also seen several people who buy the engagement ring and wedding band together as a matching set to make sure they work together. (something which to me always felt rather presumptuous)

What is more presumptuous than getting married?

Fair point.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#568

Post by [deleted] »

jandrese wrote: post #555
dagw wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and AFAIK in most of Europe In Sweden at least it seems to be quite common to wear both rings. However it also seems to be more common to have inset stones, rather than one that sticks out. I've also seen several people who buy the engagement ring and wedding band together as a matching set to make sure they work together. (something which to me always felt rather presumptuous)

What is more presumptuous than getting married?

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#569

Post by smhost »

akie wrote: post #521
smhost wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a witness for a couple (who I had only met earlier that day) at a Vegas wedding. I would also like to point out that the U.S. is as large as all of Europe combined, and that there are vast cultural differences throughout.

From a European perspective the cultural differences are not so vast.

It's not a matter of comparison or opinion.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#570

Post by wst_ »

brandur wrote: post #59
emodendroket wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that only diamond rings are acceptable, but also to say that they're unknown outside the United States.

> It's a bit of a stretch to say that only diamond rings are acceptable "only" is a pretty exclusive word, but I don't think it's a stretch saying that only diamond rings are acceptable in the general case. Especially amongst the reasonably affluent class that you'll find a lot of on HN, not getting a diamond for a spouse would be unusual enough that friends would whisper behind your backs about it. (And to be clear,…

Friends whispering behind your back? Then you should consider if they really are a friends.
Post reply on HN