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

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.

If you consider multiple big arguments in the first 8 months of a new relationship a “minor inconvenience”, then I hope you only have partners that agree with you and spare all the normal people.

Ignoring that this is probably bullshit, I think the bigger problem is that you’ve had multiple bigger and even more smaller arguments in only 8 months. Just break up.

You know, I can’t fault them for it. They gave it a try and decided the land wasn’t their bag.

It’s not the nature of power. Sometimes it’s just the nature of peoplw to be week-old cockswabs

If I can’t even patiently wait for an age to pass, I’m no immortal. I’d just be an ape that Death forgot to take.

I’m immortal. I’ll get out when the planet falls apart in an eon or 5.

Kinda feels like that only holds when you hold a minority opinion (from a larger societal view). There are no big, explicit groups for being anti-random murder or government-mandated molestations. Most of us are just sorta passively against certain things.

Anything moving faster than them in the pit lane gets vaporized by friction with the air

Pay me enough, and I’ll waste everyone’s time. Wait…

Did I just reinvent lobbying?

Shudda been liftin with yer legs there, buddy

That’s a neat concept. I’d like that

Even if he was, and I’m guessing he wasn’t, high on mushrooms. How does that make it any different than if he passed out at the controls while drunk? Highlighting mushrooms feels like a conservative push