Sacrificing everything for my dog. How I became a programmer
medium.com
medium.com
Karma is essentially the worst sort of belief, in that superficially it seems to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This appeals to a lot of people because of its clear "carrot/stick" mentality and overall simplicity. This is the "Just-World" hypothesis.
In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.
> This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.
That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
HN is pretty good at programming and startups, but even the shortest expedition into history gets even the most amateur historians all wound up and LOL.
The fundamental problem was regionalism and federalism vs states rights. Not talked about for obvious political reasons now a days because that would bring up obvious difficult questions... All the issues mentioned were trees in the forest being fought over as PR fodder for the bigger issue of the south wanted to be the south and didn't want some yankee telling them anything, even if the yankee was correct. Extreme stubbornness on both sides. Then the war of northern aggression started because the southerners told the northerners to F off and leave them alone too many times.
If you could have magically removed slavery and plantations from the history of the south and reinsert another set of trees like space alien contact and medieval era 3-d printers, the forest would remain and the civil war would have been fought more or less the same way over PLA vs ABS figurines of intellectually protected property of images of space aliens or something.
The Trees Just Don't Matter (compared to the forest)
To some extent I believe this comes from the HN population consisting of many unmarried people. Trust me, once you get married you can bicker over stuff that has nothing to do with the real issue all day if you want.
But you can't ignore the slavery though. Without it, there would have been no wealth in the south worth going to war for (nor enough resources to support succession).
Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here.
But I will go ahead and clarify my position: The fact of the matter is, the US is a combative system. For it to work properly, each side has to take the extremes of their own position so the result ends up in the middle.
The rich don't need the poor or middle class to vote as a rich person, they can literally pay people to do that for them if they wish. A poor person should vote for issues that help them specifically and directly. Forget trickle-down even if you're ignorant enough to believe in it.
A perfect example is right-to-work states. Within the last year or so I read a story about a husband in (I believe it was) Kentucky who was sent out on a neglected platform to do some work, it collapsed and he died. The family was simply out a husband, father and provider. They couldn't even sue because the way the laws worked in that state meant the company would have literally had to try and murder the man for the family to be able to sue over the indecent.
I bet if you talked to most people in that state, they would be for this law because they don't want people suing McDonald's over hot coffee, for example. But why would they care? They're closer to the burned woman than they are McDonald's, voting their interests would mean they vote for the ability to sue McDonald's if they accidentally burn themselves.
Of course ditto-heads will scream "yea but if we did that it would ruin the whole country!" and indeed if the poor and middle class always got their way it would. But that wouldn't happen. Voting their own interests would simply pull the final result closer to the middle. That is, it would present ridiculous situations like a family not even being able to sue a company for a true case of near-criminal negligence and wrongful death.
Correct, I was taking up an example, which is why I used the phrase "one might say". I didn't advocate a specific position (higher or lower taxes). I am completely detached; I don't participate in the political system in America (neither do I plan to ever) so I simply don't care.
I am not in disagreement with your thesis. The problem that bugs me is this presumption that the people are not cognizant of what is good for them. Maybe, the people do something for a reason which is of interest to them (but not the reason that someone else thinks is right for them). E.g. maybe, the people who sue McDonalds don't want their neighbor becoming rich while they are poor. This of course is not limited to the poor; this is a human thing. I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes; then again that is my opinion and is not necessarily the same as his. If you examined your decisions over a certain period of time, you will find that the reasons you do something are not necessarily in accordance with what society (or $person whom you think is smarter than you) does them for.
Go to America. Live there for a while. Move to a red state and actually talk to people. This presumption won't seem so arrogant when you meet so many people for which there is no other logical conclusion to make.
>I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes
It's not, but the voting environment has gotten so skewed that people like Buffet feel they have to abandon voting in their best interests to try and get some kind of balance. At least they claim to publicly.
It basically labels our different concerns, or different weighting of various concerns, as illegitimate. In your case, a lot of this seems to reduce to the economic man world view ... and even then, since you don't consider things like "trickle down economics" (sure seemed to work better for us in the '80s than what's been tried after Clinton) or our "libertarianism" AKA classical liberalism at least debatable points vs akin to the KKK....
I mean, is there any room in your world view for religion, e.g. "Man does not live by bread alone", or, say, non-economic principles that are worth dying for??? Any non-economic reason why anyone would volunteer for the military?
>since you don't consider things like "trickle down economics" (sure seemed to work better for us in the '80s than what's been tried after Clinton)
If you're not going to educate yourself, there's not much point in bothering with this. The stats are in, trickle down never worked [1]. And trickle down was continued through Clinton (somehow you don't realize he was more conservative than a lot of so-called republicans) on to the present time.
>or our "libertarianism" AKA classical liberalism at least debatable points vs akin to the KKK....
Of course libertarianism has some debatable points. But luckily, those points also belong to legitimate political movements as well (minus the naivety inherent in an-cap/libertarianism).
>I mean, is there any room in your world view for religion, e.g. "Man does not live by bread alone"
Sure.
> non-economic principles that are worth dying for???
As a matter of fact there are, though I would phrase it as "worth risking your life for" since simply dying is extremely unlikely to help anything.
>Any non-economic reason why anyone would volunteer for the military?
Sure. For example, if an imperialist, evil world power claimed my country was "terrorists friendly", "has weapons of mass destruction" or some such nonsense I would volunteer for the military to try and help push back these scum from our lands.
But blind patriotism? No. I don't believe someone "died for my freedoms" simply because they joined the military and died. For me to believe they died for my freedoms, my freedoms would have to be in danger from something they actually fought.
[1] Starting point, not that you'll care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticis...
I lived in a red state (TX) for three years. Tell me more how this is supposed to have exposed me to the idiotic masses who have one exact reason why they vote conservative.
In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.
> 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both.
> as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates.
> Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.
> I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
It's not about helping yourself. It's about consistent voting. If everyone votes for the rich person, the entire system will be skewed hopeless in their favor.
You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax.
And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.
>I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt. If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
Are you against voluntary society?
This is the libertarian hand waving I complain about.
As long as you have a group with guns, companies will be paying that group to use their guns to enforce the rights of those companies. That's the most rational thing for a company to do. You can't out-innovate your competitors forever, you can't undercut their price forever and you can't provide better quality forever. Doing any of these things is very hard work, can be very expensive and you will lose eventually. It's a safer approach, once you win in a market to use those winnings to buy government-created barriers to entry against you're biggest enemy: new competition.
>Are you against voluntary society?
No, I assume it's inevitable given a large enough timescale. I have simply read enough to know that such a society is incompatible with capitalism.
> And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.
Well, since I'm also an opponent of fiat currency, the government couldn't very well print any money :)
I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.
I would prefer the following for funding the (very small) government in ranking order: 1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.
And yes, the third option isn't a very good option.
> By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt.
Indeed. I can't speak about the BNP, since I don't know anything about it, but the classic liberal party of Sweden only got a few hundred votes last election.
> If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
I'll do that once the US stops being a collectivist surveillance state corrupted by cronyism, and actually starts respecting the principles set forth in its constitution again. (Not to mention when it actually starts allowing immigrants again.)
Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.
So you want the gold standard again? Hasn't being in the EU shown you the dangers of having a currency you can't adjust to respond to international conditions?
>I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.
And somehow you imagine that the megarich corporations aren't instantly going to (a) start using unregulated practices to set up all kinds of monopolies and (b) start spending money to turn the country to their favor resorting in the exact same place the US is right now?
>1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.
Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.
>Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.
Turning Sweden even more over to corporations isn't going to make it better, you must be out of your mind.
Being in the EU has shown me the dangers of government meddling in the market.
> Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.
Yes, because it's far better to steal the money instead of it being given freely. I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
Oh ffs. What place has shown you the joys of a completely laissez faire market? I'd be interested to hear about it since no such thing actually exists at any reasonably large scale. It was tried in Chile once and failed so hard that Friedman's own "Chicago boys" had to back it off.
>I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.
Okay. That would be your right. Just don't start complaining once the underfunded justice system won't have the resources to handle burglaries in homes which cannot afford private security.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy more akin to classical liberalism than any modern movement today. Don't confuse the Libertarian party with the libertarian movement. Also, there are many libertarian organizations in the US and world wide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizati...
And I suspect any international "Libertarian" parties are actually american expats. The international community does have something comparable though: ancaps. I feel the same about them.
Ask yourself, are you so certain of your position that you are willing to shoot or imprison me even if I'm causing you no harm? This is the modus operandi for both the left and right.
You have some reading to do. Start here: https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Then why was she all over those links you gave me? I think your movement has moved on without you.
>is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one with coercion.
You meant without here, right? Then we're talking anarchism. Since libertarians always talk about free markets, that would make it ancap. Which is an oxymoron.
> they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) with property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means.
A but this is exactly my issue with libertarianism: it's so much more complex than this but libertarians just hand wave all the problems away. Just a few more incantations of "laissez faire" and Utopia will arrive.
I'm not pro-coercion, I simply recognize that capitalism itself implies a level of coercion no matter how you package it up.
>You have some reading to do.
As do you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/rbxjm/an_anarchi...
If the government instead keeps taxes high, the money will simply pay people not to work. We are all poorer as a result.
People often make this claim and similar claims - ie tax cuts for the rich create jobs and growth. These are empirical claims; you need evidence for them. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine being a billionaire and not deciding to invest in cool stuff because my tax rate went up 5 or 10 percentage points.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-g...
My claim is much milder. As a billionaire, basically everything you have is invested. If he has $100m less, then $100m less is invested.
Investment has a chance of benefiting me. Consumption by the leisure class (i.e., beneficiaries of government redistribution) does not. FlyinRyan is simply incorrect in his claims.
The kind of investment the billionaire is doing is zero-sum in nature and doesn't help anyone but them.
It's hilarious that you imagine some billionaire playing the stock market has more value to you than people spending money on products (that you could be making). The 80's called and asked for their misconceptions back.
But there's an entirely different philosophy out there. Taxes, which are non-voluntary by nature, are theft and therefore unethical. It's hard for many to conceptualize, but you can actually help the poor and those causes you care about and be anti-tax. It's not like we're a bunch greedy bastards. We just think voluntary society and government is the more ethical path.
What I've started telling every single one who parrots this nonsense - "Show me an onerous regulation that causes real pain for individuals and businesses, and I'll show you an opportunity for a REAL entrepreneur to get rich by making their lives easier." For all the talk of entrepreneurial spirit among right-libertarians, they have shockingly little faith in the capabilities of entrepreneurs to turn other people's problems into business opportunities.
Why? Your vote doesn't matter. The probability of your vote affecting the outcome is so small it can't be represented with a double precision floating point [1].
So why shouldn't the poor do the same thing everyone else does, namely vote for the guy who makes them feel good?
(Incidentally, the idea that the poor vote R is statistical artifact caused by state level aggregation. http://www.tino.us/2012/11/republicans-may-be-many-things-bu... )
[1] I'm looking at state/federal elections here. Your vote might matter in, e.g., your local school board election.
Political campaigns certainly behave as if they believe voters already do vote this way. That's why Bush is the regular guy who clears brush from his estate, for example, and why everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist.
The coffee's temperature met McDonald's policy. They set it higher than their competitors because they assumed people would keep it in a cup holder and want it to be a more drinkable temperature when they arrived at their destination. Today, McDonald's has not changed their policy and still serves coffee at 80-90C, and places like Starbucks serve it at similar or higher temperatures. They are able to do this because of better packaging that's less likely to spill the entire drink even if it's dropped on your lap like Liebeck did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...
Personally, I don't think that it was a frivolous lawsuit. She did receive serious burns, more serious than I would expect someone to receive from spilled coffee.
Second, at times it should be your obligation to be a jerk to others. Not saying always, but where not doing so puts you into a worse place than you would otherwise be, you should.
To explain (followed by an extreme example): consider the most important things you need to accomplish in life (remember also that these will vary depending on what you intend to achieve with your life) -
1. Stay alive. You can't do squat if you're dead.
2. Love unconditionally, but take no crap.
3. And so on.
If being an arse to someone keeps you alive then this may give you the opportunity to save your child's life. There are many less-extreme scenarios that are just as valid. Why, for example, does the FAA suggest putting your own oxygen mask on before helping others?
PS. Everybody can be successful. Ref. Wallace D. Wattles' vol 1: The Science of Getting Rich
Disagree - If some one is "less-fortunate" and you are in the capacity to help them, you accumulate the negative kind of karma by ignoring them.
> Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway.
Maybe. But do not forget the implications on you for being a jerk.
> It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.
Depends on how you take it.
That said, anyone who is a friend of animals is a friend of mine.
Karma is about "paying it forward", not in an attempt to gain the favor of the universe, but because it is the morally correct thing to do.
If you believe in karma, you believe that the machinations of the universe will reward and punish justly, but you don't participate in the process directly. Individuals don't get to meter out "karmic retribution" to people they perceive to be unworthy.
If I believe in Karma, arguably I believe that the best thing I can do is to fulfil my station in life as I aspire to break the cycle of rebirth. It's definitely worth remembering that Karma existed in a society that did have, and still does in some ways, a very strong caste system where the good of the society was often seen as a consequence of everyone doing their assigned role. Notably, in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the arguments that Krishna uses to convince Arjuna that he should fight against his own family is because it will fulfil his verdic duties - in this instance his station in life as a warrior.
At the essence of anyone who wishes to live a better life, is responsibility. Karma is a cultural mechanic by which we humans can discuss the phenomenon of responsibility in a manner which, while it may be broken or incomplete, has indeed - by simple stint of communication - resulted in many an individual, family, group of people, improving their lives.
A little more consciousness of the responsibility of the individual to interact with the wider universe, is all one can truly hope to 'gain' from a Karmic point of view.
Just so its clear, I don't think Karma as you understand it is necessarily complete, or at least you cannot apply the dialectic materialist point of view, if you think you 'get' Karma.. imho, of course.
This concept, considered broadly, eliminates any kind of external, super-human forces, including deities and gods. It also opens the path for changes in oneself (a way to enlightenment) due to lack of any other obstacles but ones own mind.
Our own actions is only part of the big notion, and of course, according to ancient teachings, "good" and "bad" doesn't exist outside ones mind, there are just actions and the objective reality, which just is.
'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' Anguttara Nikaya 5.57 (translator: Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
Lesson to self: practice noble habits and refrain from ignoble ones.
Man, people on this site overuse the word "terrifying."
"stunning"
"I'm not so sure..."
"I'm curious,"
"perhaps"
"arguably"
"How My Startup ____________ (In Other Words, Something That Is Not At All a How-To Article)"
I do like your list, though.
(Although, I would fucking love a family with a spare house in Tahoe. )
And his lesson in pursuing happiness is pretty universal: Be willing to make very big life changes in the pursuit of happiness, and supposed "obligations" to others are never significant enough to sacrifice your happiness to.
P.S. In anticipation of a potential criticism of this, no, having children is not a "sacrifice." Do it because it makes you happy to do it. If it's a sacrifice, you're doing it wrong.
Also, as a European, I am continually amazed by the low, low real estate prices in some parts of the US. There are very nice big rural properties that even I could afford without a lot of hassle.
I must admit I've actually toyed with the idea of buying one, but to make it full circle with the article, decided against it because I thought it would be utterly unfair to my cat (she suffers enough absences as it is) - I realized that she has very little time left and that we're going to make the best of it :)
I grew up in a poor, uneducated family. The only wealthy/successful people I met were people my dad worked for, and he had nothing but contempt for them generally. It wasn't until I went to college that I really started meeting people who made something of themselves. My sense of scope, of what I can do on my own, has grown with the kinds of people I know. I left the limitations of my childhood behind long ago.
I actually respect him for explaining his motives and position even if I don't agree with him. Everybody acts irrationally and we rarely admit it openly.
I know I am biased as an italian (and pretty much adhere to the true stereotype) but I can't find anything wrong from getting help from the people that brought you in this world and which probably love you more than anyone else on the planet (and therefore have more reasons to do so). There's no shame in getting helped.
Personally, I never had that support structure and had to figure out my shit the hard way; that doesn't mean I was never helped by people, it simply means that I had to work harder to get help. This means that I find it mildly annoying when those hoops are skipped easily by people who can run to mommy and daddy when things go bad.
> I know I am biased as an italian
There is a cultural element to it. I am of Indian origin; those people are big on the family support structure thing. I think it gets way too codependent. On the other hand, America has both kinds: There are enough people who run to daddy to handle their credit card bills. There also is this Randian image of a hero who arises magically from the dust and conquers everything.
Sacrifice is about hardship, tough decisions, and tangible loss, not about your parents shaking their heads and wagging their fingers at you. I'd argue that this guy's parents sacrificed more than he ever did just to give him the privilege of saying that he "sacrificed everything".
yes, some larger breeds rate higher on obedience scale, and we, humans, equate that to the intelligence in animals. There is another bias also is that large breeds are more frequently working breeds, thus a lot of specialized effort is invested into training them, and thus more of the obedience results achieved.
As an Indian, I'd like to chip in with the actual meaning of "Karma" - the closest synonym in English is "fulfilling your purpose".
The Indian culture is heavy with assumptions that everyone has some purpose in life. The concept of karma urges you to act upon your purpose in life - intended or perceived. It never promises any rewards or punishments by itself. That is primarily taken care of by the rest of the philosophy in these books - unsurprisingly similar to all the other religions of the world.
By itself, karma has no positive or negative association. In fact, one of the holy texts dissociates your "karma" with the fruits reaped subsequent to it. "Continue fulfilling your purpose in life without expecting any rewards for your actions whatsoever." In other words:
Happiness = Reality - Expectations.
The lower the expectations and 'better' the reality, the greater your happiness. :)
Some of us forgive you, but just barely.
Regardless, thanks for the great article. I've often wondered myself how much taking care of our pets is just a displaced parenting instinct.
It's hard to say which animal is better, overall. I will say though that a cat whose devotion you've earned, to the point that it's as loyal as a dog (yet knows how to use the litter box)...is my favorite hybrid pet of all.
It works perfectly, except when my older cat forgets to bury. The younger one usually takes care of that though.
I don't have the karma thing; I just moved because I thought dogs should be able to run around all day instead of sit in a small apartment (the apartment costing actually 4x as much as the villa + large plot of land making it really insane to me now that people actually choose and like living on 80m^2 vs 200m^2+30000m^2 for 4x as much money, but he, I loved it in the city; I'm not sure if that feeling grew or was always there). We would never move back to our previous life; there is no stress anymore and money is simply worth a lot more in the countryside.
> As long as you use the money properly, and investing in yourself is the best possible way to use money, credit cards can give you a new life.
If by using the money properly he meant investing in his business, then, what would have happened if his business instead failed (as most do)?
Incurring high-interest debt like that isn't really advisable unless you have a solid plan B to deal with it in case things go awry (which they probably will).
Contrast this with the US, you can get federally-backed, low-interest loans, go to school majoring in engineering and move from poverty to middle class in one generation.
Pretty sweet deal, imo.
I.e. absent serious change, your society is doomed, you'll die out in due course; many say the example your and other counties like you provide are object lessons in what not to do.
Partly because the economic collapse was driven by banks allowing high-risk credit on mortgages, loans and credit cards, and thinking they staved off a true great depression is a very weird way to approach it.
It would be a sacrifice if he had made himself miserable for the sake of the dog.
We have a culture that glorifies sacrifice, and we need to stop doing that. Sacrifice is a barbaric, religious notion. Nobody truly gains by others' sacrifices.
That said, many Westerners are much better than the central theme of their religion. I can't really speak for eastern cultures. You may be right.
Whether it's a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect his fellow men in service, my poor immigrant aunt forgoing university to work right away so that all of her poor immigrant younger siblings would be able to afford to go to university, or a kid using his allowance to donate to charities that help kids in wartorn nations instead of buying himself a new toy, sacrifice is laudable.
And sacrifice does not necessitate misery. That's a false definition of what sacrifice entails. Yes, sacrifice can involve misery, but it does not necessitate misery. Many who sacrifice do it because it is meaningful and they have no bitterness from doing it. My aunt regrets never going to university. But she would make the same decision again in a heartbeat.
Sacrifice is glorified for a reason. In the example of the soldier, it is because of bravery and courage. In the case of my aunt, it is because of responsibility. In the case of the kid, it is because of warmheartedness. In all three cases, you could say it traces all back to a deep sense of love and wanting to do what's right. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Even though I do walk him multiple times each day, I feel bad for sitting at this machine working 70+ hours a week trying to build a business. It's taking longer than expected and it's gotten to where I can't tell if he's just getting old or possibly depressed from lack of stimulation, so I tell him (probably more so myself ;) that we're going to move on soon and have all kinds of fun. That's the main thing that keeps me going. I just hope that by the time I do get back on my feet, there's still time to give him the life he deserves.
I spent $1000 last month so one of my cats could get an abcessed tooth removed on Memorial day, out of about $2500 that I took in. You're not special.
Humans are happy outdoors. Children need to be outside exploring, playing, figuring out the earth and nature, not sitting inside on iPads all day. Just because there are "good jobs" in tech doesn't mean it's OK to withdraw your child from nature in order to allow more time tinkering with computers.
Let kids get close with nature. Let them connect with animals and the earth. It will lead to calmer, more empathetic adults with less anxiety and more confidence and compassion.
Yes, there is the additional element of nature (i.e., Tahoe) in the narrative. And nature certainly enriches both our lives and a dog's life. But having interaction with others is a more basic and even more important requirement in our lives. Nature, important as it is, is more like the frosting on top.
P.S. I love my dog too but ...
Also if you like having dogs you'll have another one with similar needs in 10-15 years.
I've often noticed that we treasure the unconditional love and dedication that dogs have for their owners, yet the same behavior seen among people would be considered weak, co-dependent, etc. Why is there such a disconnect here?
Part of the reason I won't take a higher paying job in an office environment is the satisfaction I get working from home and having my dog(s) by my side. Being able to step out of the house for fresh air and take them on a walk is worth it's weight in gold.
(note: I don't have a dog.)
Ok, mosquitoes are too.
I'm really worried for those people equating their prefered pets with human beings.
I remember those technokids playing the beggars in front of a somethingmarket in France, they had four enormous dogs and wanted money supposedly for their pets' food.
Bullshit. If you like dogs, you do not chain them allday long to some grocery entrance, and then bring them back in some small stinky appartment. You either live with them in the countryside and go hunting rabbits with them in the morning, or you just don't breed them.