<p>Gahhhh Can't I just have BOTH???</p>
<p>Here's how I'm looking at it: </p>
<p>We're choosing between two luxuries here. Not everyone can have a 7 figure income and not everyone can find "true love" (if that even exists). I think it's safe to assume one can be happy without either of the two. Not having a romantic partner does not inherently mean that you're not loved - that is, unless we suddenly feel the need to throw away every other close relationship we have. Not having a 7 digit salary does not inherently mean you're dirt poor (in fact, one can be considered quite rich without that much money). The question then is which will make one happiEST if added to an already happy life. This clearly isn't a life or death situation.
keep in mind, this choice, while thought-provoking, is entirely unrealistic: These two things aren't mutually exclusive; we all know that. But here we're forced to assume they are. So we need to define the two. 7 digit income is pretty easy. One thing...since we assume true love lasts forever, we must also assume that this 7-digit salary lasts for just as long. Now,what is true love? Does it inherently mean that this person is reliable or responsible, clean (in terms of drug use), impeccably moral? I doubt it - any idealist will say specific personality flaws shouldn't matter. Is head-over-heels passion necessary for true love? I doubt that too - the old couple who has been together for 60 years is surely "in love" but that doesn't mean they're still head over heels for eachother. Does it mean that you always get along? No way - couples always fight. But we do know that out of love we get certain ideals - loyalty, companionship, trust (regardless of money/ economic welfare - that is, essentially unconditionally).
But wait...isn't that the basis of every close friendship? What about siblings or parent-child relationships? The only thing that separates a loving romantic relationship is a unique physical attraction in the beginning....it may fade, it may not.</p>
<p>Ok...now we can weigh the two:
on the one side, you have tons of money, lots of attention, lots of passionate physical relationships, and you still have loyalty, companionship and trust from friends and family. We're assuming we can't get true love if we have tons of money (hence the choice we must make) - so you can't truly get loyalty, companionship, trust AND passion from a single person even if you may be tricked into believing that's what you have. You may end up creating a family, but in this case it's not based on "true love" and it's solidarity is conditional (that is, it only exists as long as you have money; not to mention the kids can easily become druggies or criminals)
OK - on the other side, you have less money, less attention, less popularity, but you have loyalty, companionship, trust and passion from a single person through all the ups and downs. You can create a family but it's solidarity is still conditional because you don't know how your kids will turn out, just as you don't know if you're mega-rich.</p>
<p>I'm not the most idealistic person here, that's for sure. But it looks like all the benefits lie with taking the money. In terms of family life, you're simply adding one more condition to keeping your family together. But since we assumed in the beginning that there is no reason the salary will suddenly vaporize, I don't see why I wouldn't be happier with the 7 figure income.</p>
<p>The problem is that you cannot quantify love, so of course money, which is quantifiable, will prevail in a cost-benefit analysis. That is an unfair methodology, apples to oranges.</p>
<p>LadyinRed nailed it roght on the dot and I don't have anything else to add to what she posted.</p>
<p>If LadyinRed is/was...
1. a policy/LD debater
2. decently good looking
3. Indian girl(to satisfy the rents)
4. intelligent and practical
then I think I might be in love because just that one post that she made gave me an indication of all 4 of those qualities to me. :p ;)</p>
<p>Jenspinky: HAHA I want both money and love too!!!:cool:
Coqui: I apologize for being too judgmental and I respect your opinion, just make wise decisions for your own sake.</p>
<p>Peace.</p>
<p>You can't quantify the feeling (i.e. being unable to wait to return home to see him or the butterflies in the stomach) itself, but you CAN quantify the ideals related to love. I would think that the feeling will go away eventually, but the ideals would last - so those are worth talking about. Granted - companionship, loyalty, and trust combined with passion create a whole bigger than the sum of the parts. The question is really - will you take the whole or the sum of the parts along with a bunch of extra dinero? Either one is a gift you're sure to be happy with. I'll take the sum of the parts if it means I can live in the lap of luxury.</p>
<p>Was it that obvious I'm a debater?</p>
<p>Yes, mainly because I'm a debater too so I can tell my type. ;) I could tell you were an Indian girl(still not ben confirmed though) because your posts look like something my mother would say to me LOL. Are you North Indian or South Indian???</p>
<p>I'm an LDer (though, I'm not a spectacular one). Do you do policy or LD?</p>
<p>Wow, I was unaware that the desi in me was so blatant.
North Indian...My family's from Calcutta (or Kolkata or whatever it's called now).</p>
<p>I do policy and I am South Indian, born near Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh to be exact. Out of curiosity, are you all Americanized or do you speak Hindi at home???</p>
<p>haha...I'm basically Americanized, but I can speak Bengali fluently if I must and I've come to understand Hindi.</p>
<p>are you planning on getting (or have you already?) American citizenship?</p>
<p>I'm getting American citizenship in about a year and a half. I have lived in the US for about 7 years so I am basically Americanized too LOL, however I can speak Telugu(a South Indian language) fluently and can understand Hindi too like you. What state do you live in???</p>
<p>lady in red- I knew you were an LD debater, and if you weren't than you should've been, but since you are it's good, because you are a good debater..I used to do LD debate in middle school and now I'm a judge for the middle schoolers...I would've voted in your favor, because it was a very good speech and you weighed both factors..all you need is voting factors, and it would've completed the perfect flow..If you were to use this speech in a real debate..I wonder what your value and criterion would be?</p>
<p>girl next door- I did policy debate only once, and it was really fun (and we won against the seniors, they had used their speeches from the state competition), but I kind of like being independant in debate without a partner, no matter how good the partner is..I still didn't feel the thrill that I got with LD...</p>
<p>I had to quit LD for dance..not enough time.. <em>starts to reminisce..those were the good old days</em></p>
<p>siren: the value would be happiness (well..to use debate terms - individual welfare) and vc would be ohh..I dunno...how 'bout teleology... (which is essentially a glorified cost-benefit analysis.) </p>
<p>I didn't know middle schools had LD/policy debate...hmm...</p>
<p>as for LD vs. Policy - I've never liked debating by myself; I'd much rather have a partner, but I'm afraid i'll get an incompetent one. Not to mention, I can barely spread an LD round; I would probably die in a policy one. Ahh well...I only started debate because I used to be incredibly shy. </p>
<p>the gurl next door : I live in New Hampshire. yuck.
Out of curiosity, what led you to use that username? Do you like that movie?</p>
<p>Policy debate is a lot of fun and you learn so much!!! Each and every round has the potential to be different and there is a lot of critical thinking involved every time; therefore, I really feel that it is a worthwile activity, in high school at least.</p>
<p>LadyinRed: Wow, I have never met someone that lived in New Hampshire before: i would never have guessed that LOL. I heard that it was very serene and scenic though. I would assume the schools to be very good becasue the Northeast ussually does have a reputable public and private school system. Do you go to Exeter or another boarding school per chance??? Also, are there a lot of distinct minorities in New Hampshire or is it predominantly White and European???</p>
<p>Yeah, I picked this screenname becasue I liked the movie(Elisha Cuthbert in particular) but I used to post on CC with a different sn until I lost my posting priveledges for some reason.</p>
<p>Yeah..that's what I like about policy. Each round is different. After 2 months on one topic in LD, you get really tired of the same arguments over and over and over again. Rounds are always very in-depth in policy whereas most LD rounds just skim the surface of the issue because arguments are so generalized.</p>
<p>I live in the suburbs of one of the two cities in NH, but if I drive out about 5 minutes, I see nothing but fields, cows and horses. I suppose it's scenic, but it gets boring after a while. The public school systems really aren't that good especially if you live up north simply because there are so few people. The privates are excellent though - Exeter and ST. Paul's are probably the best. I don't go to a boarding school, but I do go to a private Catholic school which, academically, is significantly better than the public school. I swear NH is one of the most homogenous states in the country. Travel north for about an hour and you're VERY unlikely to see someone who's not white. But there are a ton of Indians and Asians where I live, so it's all good.</p>
<p>Do you live in Detroit?</p>
<p>Yep I do(in a suburb of the city that is)!!! Yeah, when I visited the Upper Northeast(Maine, NH, Vermont, etc.) I thought it was sort of homogeneous as well but it kind of gave me this weird homely feeling.:) </p>
<p>On another note, it's cool to know your life isn't Asian deprived though haha.;) What other EC's do you do besides LD Debate???</p>
<p>I guess if I had to pick one or the other, I would say love because I find it to be more easy to label life fulfilling. Yeah, LadyinRed has a point about her ideas there. I just think that the term "happiness" is subjective on someone's cognition. Thoughts can be modified time after time of course. You can be taught that money is more beneficial than love. However, at this time, I just think that love makes me feel more complete. I also think that someone's mood set and thoughts determine one's perception of happiness. If my moods and thoughts are better satisfied with love, then I would suppose that would give me the most happiness. If someone really cares about me, hugs me, kisses me, and says nice things everyday, I think I will fell much more happy than a seven figure salary, a sum of money that far exceeds a comfortable income.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
You can't quantify the feeling (i.e. being unable to wait to return home to see him or the butterflies in the stomach) itself, but you CAN quantify the ideals related to love. I would think that the feeling will go away eventually, but the ideals would last - so those are worth talking about. Granted - companionship, loyalty, and trust combined with passion create a whole bigger than the sum of the parts. The question is really - will you take the whole or the sum of the parts along with a bunch of extra dinero? Either one is a gift you're sure to be happy with. I'll take the sum of the parts if it means I can live in the lap of luxury.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, then you are not talking about the same love that I am. Love that is real and true does not go away, unlike the "parts" you described (defining them with vague words is not quantification, it is elaboration, and I don't think that love is a sum of parts, but something all of its own). Those parts are really associations, things that might come with love, but they don't define love.<br>
Either way, my point stands that you cannot quantitatively compare love to money, nullifying your original argument. I think that this circular rationalization that you have going on is the same as the one the rich and unhappy use to live with themselves, or try to. I suppose that if you tell yourself that you are doing well, with enough repetition, you might start to believe it, but then are you really happy?</p>
<p>But I am diverging because you skirted around the question by making assumptions with your next question that logically lead to your original answer, without really adding any substance or justification. You should be a politician :D. Also, you are not sure to be happy with money. In fact, I think that money cannot provide happiness (but lack of money in some cases might cause sorrow to some people, not inherently, however). I would probably be happy whether I had money or not, because I don't need to buy material objects to support my state of mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, then you are not talking about the same love that I am. Love that is real and true does not go away, unlike the "parts" you described (defining them with vague words is not quantification, it is elaboration, and I don't think that love is a sum of parts, but something all of its own). Those parts are really associations, things that might come with love, but they don't define love.
[/quote]
My argumentation obviously isn't circular if you're providing me with a direct clash against the statement I made. I was making a clear statement. "Love" may be more than a sum of its parts but I'm willing to take the sum of the parts if it means I can live in the lap of material luxury. That is, this "undefinable" quality of true love (two sidenotes, well sort of - they're related to you're post: 1. I don't think the undefinability wholely constitutes love anyway - can love REALLY be separated from trust and loyalty? and 2. I don't think the quality is TRULY undefinable. It is the quality of finding loyalty, compassion, companionship, trust, caring etc. AND physical passion in a single person) can be replaced with material luxury if the two were mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Why are you even arguing with me if you believe love is undefinable?
You lead us to one conclusion no matter how you choose to look at it - 1. If love is undefinable then we can't rationally be arguing about this anyway because love in and of itself is subjective. It 's value is based solely on individual interpretation. Thus, for all your argumentation - you're simply reiterating that were YOU personally in this situation, you would choose love (because of its undefinable quality) over lots of money. But because love has this undefinable quality, my interpretation of its replaceability is completely irrelevant to what you believe so there is no reason for you to be wasting your time. We can't objectively discuss this.
2. If, as I am inclined to believe from that second paragraph, this "undefinable" love is inherently equated in your mind with pure happiness or complete irreplaceability (which believe it or not does define or at least qualify it), then the original poster's question was complete bs and we shouldn't be wasting our time dignifying it with a response (or a debate for that matter). If in your opinion there is nothing in the world, definable or not, that can take the place of true love, then there is no reason for you to be debating me - it makes this argument ENTIRELY pointless.
3. assuming that the undefinable quality of love is completely irreplaceable has more ramifications than that though. It leads you to assume, as you did in your second paragraph, that rich people who have not found true love are inherently unhappy and if they are "happy", they are deluding themselves. That basically means that those who have not found true love are extremely unhappy - that is QUITE the assumption considering that would make true love a necessity for happiness while a seven-digit salary is clearly not. And you're telling me not to weigh love according to cba because it's an unfair method? </p>
<p>In order for us to be talking objectively (that is, in order for it to be worth your while to be arguing with me), we're forced to accept that love is on a certain level definable. Otherwise, it is all simply a matter of opinion - and MY opinion is that 1. CBA is a fair method of analysis because in my mind I have placed a certain value on love - it's not irreplaceable and 2. a seven-figure income outweighs. End of story.</p>
<p>gurl next door: I've never been to Detroit. Do you like it there? it must be colder than around here, though, I dunno, NH is pretty darn cold...
I feel more at home in a very diverse area. That's just me I guess. I want to move to a big city just because I'm kind of tired of all so many of the same type of people.
Yeah, I'm quite fortunate. There are those who can't stand to be around other Asians. I'm one of those who simply can't live without 'em around (if only to laugh at once in a while lol....jk)</p>
<p>other ec's...I do a bunch of minor things...but other than debate (which takes up like 20 hours a week I swear!) I dance. I've learned bharatnatyam for many many years. typical I suppose, but I like it. I'm doing my arengetraam at the end of this coming school year.
what about you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If someone really cares about me, hugs me, kisses me, and says nice things everyday, I think I will fell much more happy than a seven figure salary, a sum of money that far exceeds a comfortable income.
[/quote]
I want a giant mansion with my own IMAX theater that I can show off to my friends. That would make me very happy. Yeah...I have come to terms with my utter superficiality...lol</p>