How much did you pay for your wife's/fiancee's engagement ring?

[Piobaire]

"...intrinsic value as a tradition..."

Guiz, might as well say, "Objective value as a tradition."

 

[Jr Mouse]

Lol

It’s telling you can’t wrap your mind around (1) why being upset with a gift not to one’s liking evinces entitlement and (2) why there is a difference between a gift recipient demanding control over a gift versus a gift giver, at his or her own discretion, offering the gift recipient the opportunity to help pick it out.

No one is talking about women “demanding” a certain gift but you and your disingenuous framing.

 

[edinatlanta]

Can’t win. Because morons.

I think I'll give this another shot: You are pompous. That's cool--on SF everyone is above average.

People are approaching this from a vastly different mindset from you. I think people are weighing any number of cons against the tradition you hold dear.

You are going to great lengths to justify what you believe. Which is fine, my dude. Everyone likes what they like. But we're not in an academic setting, even if the questions about the merits of stuffing silk into pockets is academic. So writing, earnestly no less, "The extrinsic genealogy of a practice does not invalidate whether it has accrued intrinsic value as a tradition" is... something.

TL;DR: read the room.

ETA: If you doubt that you are pompous, think how many times you've told someone their purchase, preference, or anything else is "objectively inferior."

 

[Piobaire]

No one is talking about women “demanding” a certain gift but you and your disingenuous framing.

If it wasn't for misrepresenting facts and disingenuous framing he'd not be nearly so entertaining. The myths he creates for himself are far better than the dreary reality we are forced to inhabit.

 

[edinatlanta]

If it wasn't for misrepresenting facts and disingenuous framing he'd not be nearly so entertaining. The myths he creates for himself are far better than the dreary reality we are forced to inhabit.

Im sorry you can't appreciate how his decisions are intrinsically superior, vis-a-vis the mere minions.

That is, to say, a lifetime of daily iterations provides the internal accrual of knowledge qua human, to develop a refined awareness heretofore obscured rationality.

 

[brokencycle]

You guys realize that feeding the troll only makes him diamonds, right?

 

[Piobaire]

When @wojt is the only one on your side in a discussion about marriage, women, etc. you really should stop and re-assess what you're saying.

 

[edinatlanta]

You guys realize that feeding the troll only makes him diamonds, right?

Neither us nor can quit.

 

[RSS]

Three months salary for an engagement ring? Oh my, if I get married again I'd better buy a dozen boxes of Cracker Jacks and hope for the best.

 

[wojt]

When @wojt is the only one on your side in a discussion about marriage, women, etc. you really should stop and re-assess what you're saying.

#hottakes from divorcees

 

[GeneralEmployer]

No one is talking about women “demanding” a certain gift but you and your disingenuous framing.

Foo’s principle adheres to the accepted cultural norm that a gift giver should not be told specifically what to give unless the gift giver invites this. Hence, since Foo is a traditionalist, he would not invite this. He explicitly conceded that its fine for the gift giver to cede any and all control if he is not prompted to do so, but merely wants to do so.

I think I'll give this another shot: You are pompous. That's cool--on SF everyone is above average.

People are approaching this from a vastly different mindset from you. I think people are weighing any number of cons against the tradition you hold dear.

You are going to great lengths to justify what you believe. Which is fine, my dude. Everyone likes what they like. But we're not in an academic setting, even if the questions about the merits of stuffing silk into pockets is academic. So writing, earnestly no less, "The extrinsic genealogy of a practice does not invalidate whether it has accrued intrinsic value as a tradition" is... something.

TL;DR: read the room.

ETA: If you doubt that you are pompous, think how many times you've told someone their purchase, preference, or anything else is "objectively inferior."

It’s a basic logical fallacy Foo is pointing out. The history of a phenomenon or an institution does not necessarily inform or reflect its current reality. But this aside, the engagement ring thing perhaps had other key causes: one being that engagements being lawful promises in the US was repealed in the 30s.

Also, Foo is a good writer; you are not. Get over yourself.

 

[vdubiv]

Also, Foo is a good writer; you are not. Get over yourself.

But is Foo as good of a driver as he is a writer?
Foo please ship your car to the Ring and let me borrow the keys after you do your lap and let's compare times!

 

[wojt]

Engagement ring is an old custom, but it rarely was a diamond ring before 20th century.

 

[Piobaire]

Can I just get the DeBeer's text where all these other parameters are spelled out? I'm not saying people are inventing **** in their heads and using "tradition" as justification, when in fact said **** is not part of the original marketing campaign, but it would be nice to verify this.

GE, old man, this seems right up your alley after your nice (unattributed) quote from Cicero yesterday. Could you dig up the ad campaign that created this tradition so we can see what the official parameters are?

 

[brokencycle]

When I think of someone in desperate need of white knighting, I think foo. I'm glad GE can take on such a noble yet thankless job.