Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "" video.

My parents were immediate gratification types. I watched them spend money they couldn't afford to spend constantly. They wanted a house, but couldn't save up for it. They had 4 kids. They even blamed us for it. My father told us one time if it wasn't for us they'd be rich. Meanwhile they bought a new car every 2 years and would drop $500 (this was in the 80s so that was A LOT) on crap for themselves. We would do without while they blew every cent they could. I wore my brothers hand-me-down clothes until I finally developed bobs and couldn't fit in them anymore. It made me the complete opposite. I'd do without so my kids could have something. The youngest never even realized how poor we were. The oldest figured it out. We're living proof that that attitude leads to wealth and better outcomes. We're very well off now and it's because we were very careful and never went for immediate gratification we couldn't easily afford. Even now, we can afford our house payment and 2 car payments but we don't do it because if something happened it could put us in a financial bind. Delaying gratification doesn't mean you dely it on everything. It means you dely it on something that could create future problems. If you can't dely gratification, you don't even think about that.
92
@Adam_Zielinski An open relationship isn't polygamy. Polygamy is still a closed relationship. You're comparing apples to oranges. In an open relationship none of the things you're claiming are a plus happen. Nobody you're having a brief sexual relationship with is going to join their financial resources with the couple. They're completely outside the 2 person relationship. Where as in a polygamist relationship all parties are in a committed relationship just with each other. In an open relationship, there's only a commitment between the 2. Edit: Also joining finances into a giant pool in a polygamist relationship is usually avoided. That's because unless everyone is making the same amount, it creates resentment that their money is being spent to support the others. Just more jealousy. On big purchases like a house or something that they all benefit from, sure, but not day to day expenses.
7
It takes longer than 2 years to gain citizenship. She would have gotten permanent residency status, but not citizenship. That takes roughly 10 years because it's quarters worked based. My husband is an immigrant and recently got his citizenship. We were married and lived in his country for about a year before we moved back to the US.
7
That doesn't negate it. Both of those things you're enjoying now. Neither is something you've delayed having. The equivalent would be saving up for the downpayment on the house or spending your money as soon as it hit your bank account. Those that can't dely it will never save for the downpayment. Edit: That $70 isn't going to make a difference on the huge amount owed on the house. It's not spending most of what you have for immediate gratification. That $70 isn't going to drain your account to the point you can't pay your house note. So you are indeed still delaying gratification in exchange for a longterm goal. You're not exchanging immediate gratification for longterm gratification. You're just spending what you can afford without putting your longterm goals in jeopardy.
4
@xenophon5354 I have never heard a libertarian say that society can't be coercive. In fact they advocate for smaller like minded groups because it's easier to maintain the same values in smaller groups than larger ones. It's like when I see people conflating what would be allowed in private with what would be allowed in public. The covenant is to define what will be allowed in public while maintaining individual freedom on private property. That prevents it being in the larger society and society can absolutely shame them and disassociate from those that choose to violate that. Edit: It's why the state in the Constitution had so much more power over an individual than the federal government and local government even more so. It's so people were free to create rules and laws that the communities wanted and people could move between them to live somewhere that they agreed with the rules instead of having to live under ones completely different from their own values. We're seeing people remember that today as the population move out of certain placed and flood into others. It's separating itself as it was always intended to. It's why the Constitution says these United states instead of the United states. We were never intended to be one.
2
@Selrisitai This is indeed also very strange to me. When did being mean become a violation of NAP which is physical force. This conflation of societal pressures with violence or aggressive force is just another example of the changing of words and definitions to suit a purpose.
1