“Be yourself and don’t hide who you are. Be up-front about what you want. If it puts your date off, then they wouldn’t have been good for you anyway, and you’ve dodged a bullet!”
There is something about this point in particular that I’m curious about. It seems like a change to this phrase turns things around.
“Be yourself and don’t hide who you are. Be up-front about what you can offer. If it puts your date off, then they wouldn’t have been good for you anyway, and you’ve dodged a bullet!”
As an example, if you consider your best traits to be that you’re good at videogames and making homemade cookies and the person that you are attempting to date declines your offer because they hate videogames and homemade cookies … it seems like you can make a different argument about why a bullet was dodged. In this case does the argument still fall under the same fallacy?
It seems like it might not because in that case you might really NOT care about the person who hates your interests. But it also seems to suggest ‘Give your date an opportunity to make you not care about them.’ as dating advice, which isn’t something I’ve commonly heard.
There is something about this point in particular that I’m curious about. It seems like a change to this phrase turns things around.
As an example, if you consider your best traits to be that you’re good at videogames and making homemade cookies and the person that you are attempting to date declines your offer because they hate videogames and homemade cookies … it seems like you can make a different argument about why a bullet was dodged. In this case does the argument still fall under the same fallacy?
It seems like it might not because in that case you might really NOT care about the person who hates your interests. But it also seems to suggest ‘Give your date an opportunity to make you not care about them.’ as dating advice, which isn’t something I’ve commonly heard.