Your initial argument does not address the first phenomenon. "Relationships are not stuff" and "stuff does not make you happy" does not mean that being in a relationship can make you happy. And yes, there were four negatives in that sentence. Go me
( ... )
I think I probably worded the whole post loosely- ergo losing the meaning or making it quite ambiguous.
so I agree with the disagreement - if you take the original post to mean that it is the linguistics that are the problems. However I disagree with it in that I meant more that a lot of people seem to actually think of (and not just talk about) relationships or jobs as yet another thing in the checklist and that if you tick the boxes in the list you "should" be happy - whereas it seems that there are a lot of people in the world with situations that could be improved who are happier than some people who "have everything". Linguistically you can draw an analogy between "being" and "having" as ways of perceiving relationships/parts of your life/whatevs.
It's not a perfectly worded post, so I agree I should have worded it better to make my point clearer!!
Comments 4
Reply
I think I probably worded the whole post loosely- ergo losing the meaning or making it quite ambiguous.
so I agree with the disagreement - if you take the original post to mean that it is the linguistics that are the problems. However I disagree with it in that I meant more that a lot of people seem to actually think of (and not just talk about) relationships or jobs as yet another thing in the checklist and that if you tick the boxes in the list you "should" be happy - whereas it seems that there are a lot of people in the world with situations that could be improved who are happier than some people who "have everything". Linguistically you can draw an analogy between "being" and "having" as ways of perceiving relationships/parts of your life/whatevs.
It's not a perfectly worded post, so I agree I should have worded it better to make my point clearer!!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment