Oh I get the gist, but I'd quibble with the order and placement of the items in that graph. For instance, when the effort is part of the fun, data points would be boosted, causing several to land above the x=y line. I suspect that if the effort isn't part of the fun, you got the wrong pet.
Yes, that, I liked that too, since you pointed it out. 8^) And I like that your friend's dog isn't as much fun as dogs in general (that is, when they're _your_ dogs).
Now, here's the edit I was slowly typing when you cut me off. 8^D
OK, put it another way: assuming that the fun aspect of the chores associated with keeping a pet are already incorporated in the graph, as a factor of FUN (thus: FUN = having a pet + the pleasant duties that keep the pet healthy); and assuming that EFFORT is only the sum of those aspects of pet husbandry which are not fun. In this case, the "your friend's dog" data point is probably true (it's not your dog, but you don't have to do any of the unpleasant stuff). But for everything else on that graph, pet ownership is either just barely worth all the unpleasant duties involved, or the unpleasant duties outweigh the advantages and you are probably sick of your pet already.
Enough analysis? I'm just saying, that graph is either flawed or anti-pet. I don't think it's college level. ^_^ Trying to leach the fun out of that graph is also fun. The FUN has been DOUBLED!
for everything else on that graph, pet ownership is either just barely worth all the unpleasant duties involved, or the unpleasant duties outweigh the advantages and you are probably sick of your pet already.
That's not necessarily true at all. The axes aren't labelled or scaled - there's not even a guarantee that equal distances on the same axis mean the same amount. Maybe the fun axis is logarithmic! Maybe the "effort" axis actually starts from "zero" and goes to "meh, kinda some work" as opposed to "the most work possible".
My point is, the slope of the main line is 1, but we don't know if that's actually supposed to mean "break even point of fun/effort"
I think we can both agree that sea monkeys suck, though, right?
I think we can both agree that sea monkeys suck, though, right?
Oh yeah! Absolutely! X^D Would you believe that we couldn't get those suckers to hatch the _one_ time the axolotls laid fertile eggs? Not that we needed more axolotls.
Dragons take pretty good care of themselves. They're only that much effort in terms of liability, and only if you live somewhere with lots of virgins around.
I'd argue that the fun of tropical fish comes from the effort you spend setting up their aquariums, but I realize that I am not an average person when it comes to fish, given that there are currently seven aquariums in the house ranging from 20 gallons to 125, all with different species and live plants.
That said, the dog is definitely more fun. More constant work because she's a jerk dog with issues, but definitely more fun.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 01:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 02:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 03:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 03:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 03:48 pm (UTC)Now, here's the edit I was slowly typing when you cut me off. 8^D
OK, put it another way: assuming that the fun aspect of the chores associated with keeping a pet are already incorporated in the graph, as a factor of FUN (thus: FUN = having a pet + the pleasant duties that keep the pet healthy); and assuming that EFFORT is only the sum of those aspects of pet husbandry which are not fun. In this case, the "your friend's dog" data point is probably true (it's not your dog, but you don't have to do any of the unpleasant stuff). But for everything else on that graph, pet ownership is either just barely worth all the unpleasant duties involved, or the unpleasant duties outweigh the advantages and you are probably sick of your pet already.
Enough analysis? I'm just saying, that graph is either flawed or anti-pet. I don't think it's college level. ^_^ Trying to leach the fun out of that graph is also fun. The FUN has been DOUBLED!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 03:56 pm (UTC)That's not necessarily true at all. The axes aren't labelled or scaled - there's not even a guarantee that equal distances on the same axis mean the same amount. Maybe the fun axis is logarithmic! Maybe the "effort" axis actually starts from "zero" and goes to "meh, kinda some work" as opposed to "the most work possible".
My point is, the slope of the main line is 1, but we don't know if that's actually supposed to mean "break even point of fun/effort"
I think we can both agree that sea monkeys suck, though, right?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 04:01 pm (UTC)Oh yeah! Absolutely! X^D Would you believe that we couldn't get those suckers to hatch the _one_ time the axolotls laid fertile eggs? Not that we needed more axolotls.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 04:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 05:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 06:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 06:22 pm (UTC)I can't think of one offhand.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-29 01:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-29 07:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-28 09:34 pm (UTC)That said, the dog is definitely more fun. More constant work because she's a jerk dog with issues, but definitely more fun.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-31 07:11 pm (UTC)