No, because remaining polite is important. But I will make a mental note of it, and infer that said person was socialized improperly (f.e poor family life, severe bullying, inability to form strong bonds, unstable or has no non-surface relationships with other people), and thereby stay away. I don't in anyway mean to offend, and I am certain the other would reply with "I don't want such a judgemental person in my lif…
"You say animals fulfill your emotional needs better than people? By God, I will prove you right! "
Funny, you're not wrong (in two ways ;)
The older I get, the more I start identifying with the "you know, a dog would probably be a lot simpler than all of this shit" crowd. However, I try not to lower my standards of life as I mature.
Edit: I read the article. My comment that I made (before I read the article) is still valid IMO. She scopes the issue too narrow. The issue is much bigger. Even when I watch something like funfunfunction (where the point is education) or Joe Rogan (i.e. podcasters) this point also exists. My original comment: I watch YouTube a lot. About 2 hours daily at the moment and have subscribed to 300 channels. I see one huge…
> and that difficulty, struggle and suffering are inherently worthwhile Sure, I'll happily go through that "inherent struggle and suffering, but who's going to pay for childcare? Or for after-school (there's no way me and my gf would be able to raise a kid on one salary only). Who's going to economically "smooth things up" for me and my gf and our potential kid when one of us loses his/her job and can't find anything…
You can raise kids on one income. Millions of people are doing so in this country right now, many of them very likely with much less income than you. Half of the households in the US make less than 63k. Something like 80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck. Your attitude though is very common and I think it reflects a deeper social phenomenon. The reality is that kids do not need that much to become a normal, well-…
I don't live in the States where I'm sure that things are better, money-wise, and I do know the way our parents and grand-parents grew up (i.e. poor to very poor), but I personally don't have the heart in me to bring a person into this world that will have to risk going through the same material hardships that I went through (or my parents or grand-parents). I don't want gizmos and all that (I personally don't have a laptop and I care very little about electronic stuff, even though I'm a programmer), but the truth is that education, healthcare and housing have become really, really stressful for people like me who have not won the real-estate lottery.
I would not stay away from someone because he was bullied or poor growing up. I find it wrong that someone would choose to further ostracise or marginalise or push away such person. You was bullied therefore I stay away? Wtf. If such person would harming me or my kids, I would stay away. But not just because their life was tougher then mine.
I wouldn't say it's because of the hardship, but usually the side-effects of said hardship, i.e untreated emotional problems, poor mindsets towards people and relationships, very closed off emotionally -- "guarded" and feeling like they constantly need to "defend" themselves in every relationship. After being close with a multitude of people that were improperly socialzed -- and a multitude of people that were propee…
Would you say you are free of untreated emotional problems and poor mindsets?
Just like on Facebook, the ads are doing much more than ‘paying to run’ the platform. And moreover, why would YouTube do anything but continue to increase the amount of ad content? It directly translates to more cash and profit. Same goes for paying content creators less.
> And moreover, why would YouTube do anything but continue to increase the amount of ad content? It directly translates to more cash and profit. No the relationship isn't direct. As you add more advertising content to videos people will watch less and the advertising revenue would go down - this makes it not directly correlated. > Same goes for paying content creators less. In the same way, it's not a direct relation…
This got a bit more complicated when they youtube launched their premium ad-free subscription.
Now the annoyance of ads also serves the direct purpose of advertising their own service.
I wouldn't say it's because of the hardship, but usually the side-effects of said hardship, i.e untreated emotional problems, poor mindsets towards people and relationships, very closed off emotionally -- "guarded" and feeling like they constantly need to "defend" themselves in every relationship. After being close with a multitude of people that were improperly socialzed -- and a multitude of people that were propee…
Would you say you are free of untreated emotional problems and poor mindsets?
Absolutely not. I'm not arrogant enough to make such a claim, and my observations tell me we all have them in one way or another.
But I can say with confidence that I don't let my own problems negatively affect the people I care about. I've worked hard to get to here, because I know firsthand how it affects people.
Cat does not love you. It never leaves, cause you locked it. If you move away, cat prefers to stay. Treating children like pets would be effectively emotional abuse. And while dog can fill some of yours emotional needs, quite frankly, kids won't. I have children and had pet and I can tell you that those two are comparable in any way. Not just in easy vs hard scale, but it is fundamentally different relationship.
I agree completely. But the perception that they are comparable, that pets are sufficient to replace human connection, seems to be a growing trend.
I don't think so. It is just something that people who want others to have children project into childless people with pet. It is something to invalidate/insult childless people with. Or childless in general. And occasionally to those with one child and pets.
I have never heard childless person say that they have pet instead of children. They don't have pets instead of children.
They just don't have kids and have pets. Not as replacement tho.
I'm going to disagree with you on that first sentence. It's likely that cats can sense your superior attitude toward them. As a result, they avoid bond-forming behaviors that require trust and vulnerability and mutual respect. Which in turn has reinforced your false idea that all cats are indifferent. I've been very close with two cats. They followed me around everywhere in our house wherever I went, sat next to/on m…
>cats can sense your superior attitude toward them. As a result, they avoid bond-forming behaviors that require trust and vulnerability and mutual respect. cats can trust and respect? I think it's a mistake to anthropomorphize animals to this degree.
what makes you think they can't trust or respect? do you think they treat all people identically?
Cat does not love you. It never leaves, cause you locked it. If you move away, cat prefers to stay. Treating children like pets would be effectively emotional abuse. And while dog can fill some of yours emotional needs, quite frankly, kids won't. I have children and had pet and I can tell you that those two are comparable in any way. Not just in easy vs hard scale, but it is fundamentally different relationship.
This is a pretty interesting article about animals and emotions by a primatologist: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/sunday/emotions-a... It goes through a lot of emotions specifically thought to be human and shows evidence for them in animals. I couldn't find a paragraph to sum it up, but this might be the thesis of the article: > Uniquely human emotions don’t exist. More and more, I believe that we share…
Sure, but really, cats don't love you. They tolerate you and may like you.