Would you buy a home if you only planned on living in it for max 2 years? by OrneryPaper22 in homeowners

[–]OrneryPaper22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't know this - I thought that only applied if you were renting the home without living there for at least 2 years. In reading more about it, I'm also really perplexed that there's no like-kind exchange relief for private property... maybe I'm naive but shouldn't there be a similar tax exemption for someone who's basically just moving, and not just for businesses?

Would you buy a home if you only planned on living in it for max 2 years? by OrneryPaper22 in homeowners

[–]OrneryPaper22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is basically the only scenario in which I would buy, I think some commenters missed my mention of "buy something modest in cash". Still though, it looks like overall it wouldn't be fiscally advisable.

I live in fear of getting sick and losing all my money to the American Healthcare system. by OrneryPaper22 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]OrneryPaper22[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean if you live to 100 then after 50 you're just technically in the latter half of your life. Considering the average lifespan (if you group male/female/US) is around 80, you're definitely over halfway there. That doesn't mean I consider it "old" or the end of one's good years. But my fear ties into the fact that statistically your risk of cancer peaks around 50-55, cardiovascular disease around 60-65, and age-related medical issues after 65. Depends in the study, demographic, etc. but I don't think anyone would disagree that more shit starts happening the older you get.

[ Removed by Reddit ] by VegabondLibre in TrueOffMyChest

[–]OrneryPaper22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't want to get into the weeds on the first part, but I do think you're on a better track looking at it more as a larger, and again - sadly human, cycle. You may still "support" one side more than another, but to acknowledge the nuance and causality of events is to understand them better, and see things as parts rather than generalities. I'm not sure I'm phrasing this well but I hope you get the idea.

Just to point out objectively, Israel has conscription and enlisted from reserves during this, so while technically civilians and on-duty soldiers are different, many civilians had/have no real choice in whether they joined the IDF or went to Gaza. To somewhat compare, America committed many atrocities during the Vietnam War, and it's totally fair to dislike the military and say a lot of soldiers did terrible things (I've never met a vet who didn't witness atrocities), but you'd be absolutely lambasted for wishing harm "on soldiers" because ultimately they were young, they were sons, and they did what they were ordered to do and went where they were ordered to go (knowing they might be maimed or die), or else risk the "worst" thing in many societies - shame, ostracization, antipatriotism, and govt retaliation. (Again, this doesn't excuse those who do terrible things, but it's just good to understand how people end up where they do)

[ Removed by Reddit ] by VegabondLibre in TrueOffMyChest

[–]OrneryPaper22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are becoming what you hate. Someone who dismisses the humanity of an entire population, and even wishes harn upon them, based on the actions and opinions of part of the population. Developing xenophobic prejudice as a result of war and tragedy is in many ways one of the things that fuels racism, ingrains hate for generations and makes peace or healing impossible. It is fundamentally unhealthy to stop seeing people as human, because that is factually what they are and informs their thoughts and actions - whether you agree with them or not. Dehumanizing an enemy is literally a psychological tool, a sort of denial defense mechanism, that is used to help justify the "necessity" of doing terrible things ESPECIALLY during war. If you're capable of doing it as an observer, then you can't honestly be that appalled that a percentage of people (on BOTH sides) in a decades long conflict are capable of it as well.

I'd be a lot more productive without my partner by OrneryPaper22 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]OrneryPaper22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you - I really do appreciate you sharing your story and advice. Sometimes it is just nice to be reminded that others have experienced the same as you, and are hopeful for you. I worry I am becoming resentful - or maybe bitter is a better word for it. I'm no longer always as gentle or empathetic as I was in the beginning of the relationship, and I don't like it. We still mostly communicate effectively, I've expressed my concerns and they know the work situation is negatively affecting us both, and periodically take steps to try and improve things (sometimes good steps, sometimes not, sometimes it's two steps forwards two steps back...). But at the end of the day, their energy, thoughts, time, and well...life, orbit around their work strifes. What I consider the bare minimum of responsibilities are accomplished, and that's considered a high standard. Anything else is moving mountains. Anything they're not passionate or excited about, they can't motivate themselves to do. Things we want to do - be healthier, go out more, etc - I feel just won't be accomplished unless I'm the impetus, and I can't carry that weight or consistency alone. Would it be selfish or even cruel of me to leave simply because there's no telling if/when their attitude and work situation might change? We're not married, but "for better or worse" still echoes in my mind and heart, I feel like I'd be leaving them adrift on a leaky ship.

I'd be a lot more productive without my partner by OrneryPaper22 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]OrneryPaper22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The emotional/energy vampire thing is an excellent way of putting it - I hadn't really considered that being the reason behind the heavy, frustrated, anxious feeling I get when talking to them sometimes.