|
Pick posted:Your wedding should be as beautiful as you can reasonably afford. Spending all your money on a wedding is a cool and good way to shoot yourself in the foot during the most critical episode of your life.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Not as long as you treat it like planning a family reunion or something similar. If the cost seems dumb for a regular party, then you can't reasonably afford it. The open bar should be the most expensive part, probably by an order of magnitude
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Tropical rainforests (also called jungles) are the coolest and best environment. Oceans are second. Deserts and wetlands are tied for third. Temperate forests and tundras are tied for fourth. Grasslands can go suck it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
wind is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
I like hairless cats more than cats with hair
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:The gently caress? Why would you even go? Thats like inviting people to go to 5 hours of church. My plan would be to get married at the courthouse and then rent out an open bar and hall like a normal reception, but tell the venue its a birthday or something. Saying the word "wedding" automatically add a couple hundred dollars to anything you're planning. Very close friends who have legit reasons to not want alcohol near them. It was, like someone else mentioned, basically just a very long catholic church service and I was bored stiff by the end of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:They're no more fun than a regular party but they cost way more to attend. If you actually care about the people getting married and appreciate what it means to them and their families it's really not a great comparison
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Tropical rainforests (also called jungles) are the coolest and best environment. Oceans are second. Deserts and wetlands are tied for third. Temperate forests and tundras are tied for fourth. Grasslands can go suck it. Plains of America are boring as gently caress. Their one redeeming quality, besides providing food for the country, were buffalos but now they're mostly gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
All you need to do to prove the suckiness of plains, steppes and grasslands is to look at the thousands of years when people would constantly build empires with the sole purpose of breaking out of those regions and settling anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
It's great that billionaires donate a ton to hospitals and such but do they really need to put their name on everything? I rather kill myself before going to Zuckerberg General Hospital.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:It's great that billionaires donate a ton to hospitals and such but do they really need to put their name on everything? I rather kill myself before going to Zuckerberg General Hospital. Better than the Peter Thiel Blood Donation Cruise Ship
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:It's great that billionaires donate a ton to hospitals and such but do they really need to put their name on everything? I rather kill myself before going to Zuckerberg General Hospital. It's not that great, since they actively lobby against taxes and offer their charity as the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Here's my (probably extremely) unpopular opinion. Charity doesn't work. We have billions (maybe trillions?) going to all of the world's charities and there's still a million big problems. Charity hasn't fixed poo poo. Now I'm sure a lot of people will reply with "Well this one charity did this one concrete thing" and that's not my point. It's that as a system, the concept of charity fails. There isn't enough money or there are too many causes or something is happening because poo poo should be better by now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Things are better though as a direct result of charity. If it was easy to solve the problem they wouldn't need so much money. It's like saying we should stop funding scientific research because we don't have all the answers yet despite trillions of dollars and thousands of years of effort. It's a long process of smallish steps working toward the larger goal. Even if they never get there it doesn't indicate failure necessarily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
The problem with charity isn't that it doesn't make some thing better. The problem is that things should be made better by sweeping, mandatory, social programs that are funded by, again mandatory, taxes. It should not be left up to the whims of a billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Charity, from the perspective of donors, is a patch you put on a problem to make yourself feel better about contributing to it. It's not even meant to solve problems, for the most part, just relieve troubled conscience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Charity as a personal attribute is great, charity as a thing you give money to because you're too lazy to destroy the oligarchy or because you are in the oligarchy is not that great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
There should not be charity, there should only be The State.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Unironically agree, since Charity middlemen are literally evil. There's nothing wrong with taking a salary if you're actually doing something, but taking a cut simply to send the money to other groups should be criminal
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Here's my (probably extremely) unpopular opinion. If people can afford to donate to charity they can afford to pay more taxes so that the need for that charity doesn't even exist. Thanks rich guy for donating 10 million to this hospital and putting your name on it. How about instead of that we just tax you and your buddies more so we can reliably fund all this poo poo without having to come begging cap in hand with promises of fancy plaques and naming rights? Charity is a scam to under-fund critical services.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Trying to remain totally faithful to a book when adapting it to film or TV is absolutely ridiculous, and it's the reason why so many adaptations are terrible. It's a fundamental misunderstanding about how both mediums work, it's unreasonable and stupid to expect everything that happens in the book to happen in its adaptation with no changes. The only important thing is nailing down the tone of the book and translating it visually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If people can afford to donate to charity they can afford to pay more taxes so that the need for that charity doesn't even exist. Thanks rich guy for donating 10 million to this hospital and putting your name on it. How about instead of that we just tax you and your buddies more so we can reliably fund all this poo poo without having to come begging cap in hand with promises of fancy plaques and naming rights? Well, since we (mostly) live in a country that will most likely never implement such a policy in our lifetimes, it's better than just raging on the internet/doing nothing. Just because it isn't perfect and there are better ways to do it doesn't mean it's bad. You have to think about the reality of the world, not what you'd like it to be if you were running things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
I can tell you from my experience in Bangladesh that all your donations go straight to Members of Parliament. I can especially tell you that's so because many of my in-laws are MPs. These people are the same ones who own all the land, all the labor and can only barely manage to tolerate being in contact with the servant class. If other countries work anything like it, the French aristocracy of the 18th century is alive and well. The only charity I found doing much of anything on-site was Habitat for Humanity, under which we did some poo poo like visit with orphans, clean up garbage and thatch houses for slum areas. The house thing stands out in my mind because it tore up everyone's hands and they got bulldozed two weeks later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If people can afford to donate to charity they can afford to pay more taxes so that the need for that charity doesn't even exist. Thanks rich guy for donating 10 million to this hospital and putting your name on it. How about instead of that we just tax you and your buddies more so we can reliably fund all this poo poo without having to come begging cap in hand with promises of fancy plaques and naming rights? I think that poorer people giving to charity is praise-worthy, but I think there is nothing praise-worthy about a rich person giving to charity (unless they're literally giving away everything to the point where they're no longer rich). I understand why someone would do the praising (since you want to massage the rich person's ego enough that they'll donate more in the future), but it's still absolutely disgusting, especially if the rich person in question is the one who requested their name to be on buildings or whatever. Like, if I was rich I'd donate a bunch of money partly because it would be an easy way to effectively buy social good will. I'd still be rich, but people would praise me a bunch because I gave away a small portion of my vast wealth. Ytlaya has a new favorite as of 20:25 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Yeah I was at the hospital recently and they had a big wall of donors and it was a who's who of the most lovely right-wing anti-tax business people in town who all also donate heavily to political parties who want to gut the health system and reduce taxes on the rich. But two of the biggest donations, like seven figures, were from "anonymous". That's how you do charity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I would be like Ted Danson in Curb Your Enthusiasm and donate anonymously but tell everybody it was me
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
On the topic of taxes, what we need is a wealth tax, not an income tax. The richest hardly even have a income to tax in the first place compared to their total wealth. If people want to argue taxes should be lowered for investment vehicles to help the economy grow, them they could do something like exempt shares in a company from being taxed as long as the holder has no voting rights, no board position, and holds under a certain percentage of the company's total available shares
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Those ideas and those like them will always be hated by a lot of people because they will be twisted into "these guys think success should be punished!".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Those ideas and those like them will always be hated by a lot of people because they will be twisted into "these guys think success should be punished!". Since no-one has ever succeeded by honest work, yes it should be punished. There are no innocent rich people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Rich people are better than poor people. But rich people have a much much greater responsibility toward civilization, this means more taxes, more civic duty, etc etc etc. What we're facing is the consequences of generations of people being allowed to forget this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If people can afford to donate to charity they can afford to pay more taxes so that the need for that charity doesn't even exist. Thanks rich guy for donating 10 million to this hospital and putting your name on it. How about instead of that we just tax you and your buddies more so we can reliably fund all this poo poo without having to come begging cap in hand with promises of fancy plaques and naming rights? if i were a fantastically rich dude i'd much rather dump millions directly into neglected local facilities and the like rather than donating directly to the current system so the government can turn my dollars into missiles, drones, wage raises for senators/congressmen/etc, cash incentives/bribe money for diplomats, maintain the f-35 life support system, etc, etc, etc with maybe a wee fraction leftover for the actual hospital
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Local donations would be fine, why not, but if you actually wanted to help people on a large scale you then should also use the money for lobbying against all the stuff you mentioned, and for universal health care, etc.. It's what the people who actually are rich do, except in reverse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:Plains of America are boring as gently caress. Their one redeeming quality, besides providing food for the country, were buffalos but now they're mostly gone. The plains of America basically don't exist anymore. 99% of the prairie died when agriculture became a widespread thing. Whenever someone tries to restore natural prairie, they find that they're missing giant chunks of the ecosystem because most of it is loving extinct. And those niches get filled in with invasives that are basically everywhere in every ecosystem nowadays. Rangelands management nowadays is basically "How do I reconcile cows with grasslands?" because lol at the Buffalo ever coming back in force. Existing Buffalo herds are full of the same diseases that are common amongst cows because of cows but that's a huge reason why the idea of expanding the ranging of buffalo herds in places like Yellowstone is shot down. "Mah cows!"  . People bitch about the death of the Old growth in the West, but honestly, the West is home to the least hosed up ecosystems there are in the Continental US. Going east when you have any ecological knowledge is like going into Mordor, where instead of vast, incredible and diverse ecosystems, all you see are giant monocrops, polluted rivers, development loving everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that poorer people giving to charity is praise-worthy, but I think there is nothing praise-worthy about a rich person giving to charity (unless they're literally giving away everything to the point where they're no longer rich). I understand why someone would do the praising (since you want to massage the rich person's ego enough that they'll donate more in the future), but it's still absolutely disgusting, especially if the rich person in question is the one who requested their name to be on buildings or whatever. yeah the whole plaque thing doesn't bother me so much for some of the reasons you mentioned; there are still plenty of phenomenally rich fellas out there who are involved in zero philanthropic endeavors whose money is completely tied up in wealth-generating systems that i still can summon respect for those that do - it may not fit in with the judeo-christian definition of charity but i'm mostly okay with a dude getting naming rights and maybe a gala charity banquet in his honor if the social prestige of donating gives his ego enough of a chub that he actually donates consistently to a worthy cause
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Charlie Day really isn't that funny to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Charlie Day really isn't that funny to me. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:I would be like Ted Danson in Curb Your Enthusiasm and donate anonymously but tell everybody it was me You're either anonymous or you're not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De90ozOOquY
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
The 10 commandments are garbage and you can generally tell the moral worth of a person by how seriously they take them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Haha classic Jastiger
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:The 10 commandments are garbage and you can generally tell the moral worth of a person by how seriously they take them. Not killing, not stealing and not trying to gently caress people's wives are pretty reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:44
|
|