QUOTE(silverhawk @ Oct 7 2009, 11:15 AM)
I get your point miss. I've got it from the start.
I didn't say you deleted it, I just said you placed money ABOVE it. Money is more important to you than the person's character.
That's good, though I wonder why you said "I believe I will" rather than "I will". Why is there that glimmer of doubt?
That is YOUR perception of the argument, its not what WE are saying. At least not n00bi3, duke red and I. What we're saying its doomed when you place MONEY before CHARACTER. You're advocating looking for someone rich with a good character, rather than someone with a good character that happens to be rich. There is a difference between the two.
When you put money as the initial criteria, you don't bother to know the person first and what he is capable of. You just look at what he has, if he doesn't "have it" yet, you just ignore him. If you put character as the initial criteria, you'll actually get to KNOW the person FIRST, whether he has enough money to support you or not, or whether he is capable, you will then know and decide.
Debbie holds the latter view, she looks at character first. You don't see me slamming her views, only yours. Did you ever stop to think WHY?
I've seen many girls marry "poor" people and also be happy! Likewise I've seen people marry rich people and be sad.
Once again, you JUMP to the extreme. Between ok-ok and perfect there's a huge gamut of choices. I'm saying we should stick with someone we can accept, some who's character we like. Not someone's who's character we simply tolerate because they can give us something in return.
As I mentioned again and again, you're not looking at the points we're trying to tell you. You have an assumption of what we mean, and that skews your perception of our argument. Then you go around and try to refute us based on your version of our argument. However that is NOT what we're saying. Try to discuss this properly yes?
You know, if I didn't know better... I'd think you were male. Your ego is at least as big as one
Did it ever occur to you that I have a JOB and I need to WORK?
Your arrogance astounds me. Proving you wrong is easy, and I've consistently been doing it, of course your ego will not allow yourself to admit that
There's nothing wrong with that. However, in life things do not always go the way we want them to. In that event, would you be willing to work to help support your family? or would you rather let your hubby carry all the burden? In any scenario, its always a good idea to be prepared for the worst, even though there is no sign of it coming in the future.
I TOTALLY AGREE to Hawk.
In short, moorish is taking a shortcut to access for unlimited wealth. Marrying someone rich can help you skip working life? NO WAY. You think it is that easy?
She refuse to work. Let me guess why?
Working is tough and hard.
I hate facing people or being instructed by superior or boss.
All I want is money but don't want to work.
Working is stressful, tiring and restless.
Let's look at reality again.
Both man and woman work. Man loves woman, woman loves man because both has the initial criteria both can agreed.
Man spend money to have time with a woman. Woman spent time with man. Fair enough. Still both are working.
Man works hard save money, and woman works hard and save money too.
Along the way they endure ups and downs but still they face it. Some losses job and find a new job, or get promoted with salary increase.
When man saved enough money he proposed a marriage to the woman after several years of relationship. Husband took a mortgage to buy a house, and diversified investment to create wealth. After married both husband and wife work harder save money just in case of uncertainty and reduce risk. They buy insurance and planned ahead of time. Wife got pregnant and still she goes to work even harder this time with a belly bulging. (Woman deserve respect this time.) A responsible husband works harder to prepare reserve funds for the incoming baby. (Man deserve respect too). The baby is born, both wife and husband took maternity leave to take of the child wife gets 3 months, Husband gets 1 or 2 months maternity leave.
Husband and wife resumes their daily work and together take turns to bring up child until tertiary education. At this point, both are financially stable should the need arises wife can quit the job and take care of the child. Husband advised the wife to quit and spend more time with the child. In some cases wife refused to quit fearing financial uncertainty and risk. Husband diversified investment in real estate and property to create passive income.
At this point, having money=security? Not exactly.
Let me tell you banking terms money is always a depreciating asset, bombarded by market forces. Prices go up during economy crisis and affects both man and woman. So is it good to be SAHM ?? SAHM with no prior working experience.
Anyone dares to challenge reality?
This post has been edited by blitzboy: Oct 7 2009, 11:52 AM 
Oct 6 2009, 10:53 AM
Quote
and sometimes I advised her to spend responsibly.
to silver, dickson and noob13 for their patience to quote/debate on every single sentence. I already beh tahan and straight off attacking them. You have my respect guys.
I can't tolerate men like this. If my wannabe-wife earns more than me, I will threat it as a bonus, not an entitlement. I will work harder to prove I can do it also.
0.0692sec
0.61
7 queries
GZIP Disabled