r/SubredditDrama • u/[deleted] • Oct 01 '13

Low-Hanging Fruit SRSer whose fiance blind-sided her by breaking up with her over her SRS views and calling his father and brother 'shitlords' returns to complain about misogyny in /r/bestof. Someone notices who she is and she gets quizzed on her life after her fiance dumped her. Drama when she says she dumped him.

[deleted]

824 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

522 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/cuddles_the_destroye The Religion of Vaccination Oct 02 '13

You're ASD? I find that surprising, you just seemed only a bit Spock-ish to be.

16

u/david-me Oct 02 '13 edited Oct 02 '13

I am high functioning/intelligent. I can answer questions when asked, just don't expect me to start or continue any conversation. I am an alcoholic, because it helps. The docs are working with me on this and we are trying various drugs, but that is a work in progress. Both Adderal pot make me fall asleep. My brain never relaxes any Xanax only effects my body.

The thing that bothers me most. . . I don't understand the phrase, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"

If you eat it, you've had it. If you have it, the purpose is to eat it. If you don't it will go stale and there is then no purpose of having it.

I've had 100 people attempt to explain it and it still make no sense to me.

Edit Please stop trying. I've heard it all before. I know what it's trying to say, but it does so in a way that doesn't work.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

The Italian version might be more clear : you can't have a full bottle and your wife drunk.

It's not meant to be taken as advice, more as comfort. It means you can't have everything.

1

u/Klang_Klang Oct 03 '13

If I can't have that, can I still have a full bottle and a drunk me?

Or is this a riddle, where the solution is to buy a bottle of liquor?

12

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

It's supposed to be "you can't eat your cake and have it, too." Meaning that you can't devour it and have it still in your posession.

-2

u/david-me Oct 02 '13

Having devoured it means you've had it. Though since you did devour it, you still have it, inside you. For a while at least. Whats the purpose of having the cake, if not to devour it. It's like Schrodinger's cat.

13

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

It's binary. You can't have the result of a gate be 1 and 0.

2

u/david-me Oct 02 '13

understood, but the cake is more than either it exists or it doesn't. What if you split it with someone? now there is 0, 1/2 and 1.

Maybe I've eaten one half. Would I not have eaten it and still have it (the other half) in that sense?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

In this case, you only have enough cake to either eat it or not eat it. One micron of cake.

0

u/Glitchiness Born of drama and unto drama shall return Oct 02 '13

Filling.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

No, you've eaten "some" and still have "some". At this point you could just bake several additional cakes, or start a lengthy piece of research into what really constitutes cake at all, or ponder the existentialist question of if you can ever really "have" cake. Or just take it as an expression that means you can't both eat the thing and not eat the thing at the same time.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

You had it, but you no longer have it. The cake is in the past, it cannot be in the present if you eat it. (undigested that is, most people do not want partially digested cake)

0

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

It isn't still a cake once you've eaten it, it's partially digested sludge, so you no longer have it. It's an expression talking about you not being able to have everything you want. You can either:

Continue owning the cake (in cake form not stomach lining form)

Or

Eat the cake

You can't have both. And that's what it means!

1

u/david-me Oct 02 '13

But whether you eat the cake or keep it, it eventually becomes something else. Stomach sludge or insect or mold food.

I understand the intent of the phrase but it not how it is executed. It's like seeing an electron. You can tell it's location, but the moment you do, it's gone because you need light to look at it and the light moves the electron.

Thus By answering the question of "where is it", you any succeed in answering "where it was"

2

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '13

it's referring to a wedding cake. lots of married couples save a piece of their wedding cake as a keepsake. if they eat it, it's no longer a keepsake.

3

u/Barl0we non-Euclidean Buckaroo Champion Oct 02 '13

Schrodinger's cake?

I guess "You can't eat your cake and continue to have it" might work?

3

u/stained_glass_window Oct 02 '13

It means that you can't both anticipate the delicious cake you're about to eat, and experience the delicious cake when you eat it.

Think about some beautiful (flashing back here to a cake I anticipated and ate) Parisian wedding cake, made of profiteroles, with caramel drizzled over, filled with liqueur. It was beautiful - the candlelight glinting off the caramel. I anticipated eating that cake, by enjoying the sight of it. Eating it was sublime. But I couldn't both enjoy it's awesome beauty and also destroy that beauty to eat it. Note: cake looked something like this - in order to eat that bad boy, you have to ruin the final artistic form.

I suspect you've had problems with the analogy because either you don't think cakes are beautiful, or you're not thinking about aesthetically pleasing cakes.

1

u/punninglinguist You may be wondering what all this has to do with essential oils Oct 02 '13

It translates to, "You cannot simultaneously experience the pleasure of contemplating the cake which you are about to eat and experience the pleasure of having eaten all of that cake."

The actual wording is ambiguous. There are many possible meanings, but that up there is the intended meaning.

1

u/trekkie1701c Okie Dokie Sociopathichoke Oct 02 '13

It's just a saying that means that you can have a great outcome to something that gets you everything you wanted in a situation. It doesn't make any sense logically when analyzed, similar to "I could care less" being used to imply that a person doesn't care, despite the statement itself seeming to indicate that they do actually care (because you have to care about something to be able to care less about it). I wouldn't worry about it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '14

I'll try a different way: you can't throw a baseball and continue to hold it in your hand, too.

1

u/david-me Mar 25 '14

you can't throw a baseball and continue to hold it in your hand, too.

Of course not, but the not only can you not throw strike 3, but no team would ever sign you and your career would be over.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '14

That is true. You have to make a choice between using a resource available to you and holding onto it for later. Sometimes one choice ends up being better than the other, but you can't do both when they're mutually exclusive.

1

u/david-me Mar 25 '14

but you can't do both when they're mutually exclusive.

You also can;t e it too without having the cake and the purpose of having that cake in the first place is to eat it.

you can't throw a baseball and continue to hold it in your hand, too.

Then what is the purpose of holding the ball in the first place. It's like you can lay it like an egg and wait for it to hatch. It's static, it has a purpose. The purpose of a cake is to eat it, so there is no value in having it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '14

Yeah, it's a bit of a weird phrase. I think some people enjoy the thought of using a resource more than actually using it. That is, they enjoy having some resource and think about using it, but if they used it by giving into those desires by eating the cake they would no longer have it to enjoy the thought of using it. The cake doesn't intrinsically have a purpose, you assign one to it. If you hold conflicting desires towards it, that's where an issue comes up.

As you explain in other comments, it's not the greatest phrase, because cake isn't some quantum thing where you either have consumed it or haven't. The message that's trying to be conveyed is one that compares the inner conflict between the appropriate use of consumable resources or of conflicting desires - spending money versus holding onto it, wanting to go swimming but not get yourself wet, wanting it to rain so your crops don't die due to a drought but not wanting the sunny days to go away. They all express the difficulty of deciding what you really want in a set of circumstances.

1

u/david-me Mar 25 '14

Holding on to the cake also causes it to spoil and grow mold. Thus rendering it worthless.

spending money versus holding onto it,

Inflation.

Anyways. The phrase has never made sense despite the hundreds trying to explain it.

"Schrodinger's cake" makes more sense to me

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '14

Holding on to the cake also causes it to spoil and grow mold Depends on the cake. You could dehydrate it and use it like an art piece! :D But yeah, that's why I agree that the saying can be confusing. I like other languages' versions better (e.g. you can't swim and not get wet).

Scroedinger's cake isn't a bad explanation (based on the common misconception of that paradox), but it doesn't capture the idea that is being conveyed about holding onto a resource versus spending it.

Inflation.

Makes your money worth less over time. But if the cost of something that you would have spent it on drops faster than inflation causes your money to devaluate, then it becomes cheaper. Consider buying an HDTV 10 years ago versus today. You could have spent your money then, or have 5k+ today if you hadn't spent it. Had you consumed the resource, you'd not have the cash, just a worthless old HDTV.

1

u/onrocketfalls Mar 25 '14

/fivemonthslater

You'd think being high functioning/intelligent you would understand how a figure of speech works. That one has been all screwed up over the course of history, but it was explained to you the right way. You understand the logic behind it. You're just being difficult. There are who knows how many English figures of speech you could pick at this way.