I don’t get what this statement is getting at in relation to the above post?

Cheers! Half of the time I understand jokes every time.

This is what happens the other 50%.

Is that an intentional bread pun? I’m not getting the relation.

Sure, the Earth channel has other shows but Humanity has become the main pull of the channel such that it’s pretty much the Earth show. I’ve tried watching some of the other stuff Earth puts out but it hasn’t held my attention like Humanity has, even if the last few seasons have been absolute dogwater.

Ah, kph/“kills per hour”. My favorite American unit of speed.

They’ll unleash such violent violence that women’s voice won’t ever again.

Did any famous people dodge the draft (and also underachieve their whole life) and succeed? I need a more achievable role model.

It does?

Made significantly more difficult because the American president is the one doing the asking.

Talibangelical cats. Like Rumtumtugger, Mr. Mistoffelees, and the Nefarious Netanyahu.

I mean, that is just a sci-fi concept. Ecumenopolis.

You’re lucky if the game has reasonable climate progression like this. Most games the frozen zone is right next to forest zone which is right next to the volcano zone.

“Maudlin” is a word that comes to mind.

Sorry, I didn’t sanitize my output, assuming this would forestalled by the redirect to my other comment explaining I see how I was applying my implicit biases and connotations to what “argument” means.

I didn’t call out the addition of competitions then because I didn’t think this would sprawl as long as it did. I will do so now:

I never said a word about competitions and that, in my mind, has no inherent bearing on the healthiness of a relationship as there can be different types of competition. So we can immediately excise that from further discussion.

Addressing the sole part that is relevant now: I now agree arguments aren’t necessarily angry, by everyone’s definition. But that was the tone and definition with which I made the original comments up until that first reply to chicken.

You can see that segment as a revision of my first reply to you. Have a good whatever.

Yeah, I can admit my definition of argument might not widely applicable. Not to say my understanding of the word is the sole definition but people often use words wrong, so I shouldn’t die on the hill that my interpretation is the correct one.

But, to your second point, I read the OOP as the supposed “gf” (I still assume the OOP is fake) being the main instigator for the argument while the writer is more passive. The gf is able to leave but is also the one who rejoins the argument later, after having ChatGPT corrall her talking points.

But that’s getting more into the weeds of analysis than I csre to go.

I’ve never said a single word about competitions in relationships.

Idk if you saw my expansion in my comment to chicken in a different subthread.

If you have and this is still your answer, then whatever that’ll be your opinion and I’ll have mine. Some people smoke multiple packs a day and live to 80 but that doesn’t make smoking a healthy thing to do either.

Check my comment to chicken and edit this if you want.

Hmm, that’s given me pause, to reconsider.

I consider an “argument” when voices get raised and people get heated. Big or small is difference of how long people are upset and how loud participants get. I will concede I was unwittingly applying a definition other people may not share.

Note: it it gets physical, that escalates from “argument” to “fight”.

Edit: to address your comment more directly. No, if people are being civil and tones are reasonable, a disagreement doesn’t have to be an argument. It’s just another discussion. Perhaps a debate. But an “argument” in my mind is oppositional.

Since we’re playing silly numbers: 0. You can, and likely will, disagree but healthy people shouldn’t escalate into anything resembling an argument.

But speaking of silly numbers. All of those you used. No one says “a couple” when they have a concrete number in mind unless they’re looking to downplay the number. It can be 2, it can be 3, it can be 4. It’s only, definitively, more than 1.

Also, why are big arguments being weighted the same as small arguments? Although I’m not going to quibble over how many small arguments a big argument is “worth” (assuming we take 1 ‘small argument’ as our unit).

Lastly, how often are you seeing each other in the first month that an argument, even a small one, doesn’t throw up red flags. If you REALLY like them on the first date, you’d make time to see them like twice a week or something? I’ll admit that there is leeway here as to what constitutes “dating” someone as some people see potential SOs for weeks (months?) before locking in. I also admit I’m abnormal as I frequently need time to not see people. My point remains that unless you’ve moved in with them as soon as you started dating, you are not seeing each other with enough frequency for that volume of arguments to make sense. Unless the arguments are about the (in)frequency of going on dates.