> I can't invite my teetotaling and vegetarian friends out to many of the casual things I enjoy, and their purity issues create a self-imposed artificial constraint on their life opportunities. Someone with an actual medical issue learns to adapt to life and live it, where someone with a purity constraint selects for oppotunities where they can impose it on others.
Who is imposing on whom? I did not write the vegetarians and teetotalers force others to not eat meat or not drink alcohol.
> Also, if someone is struggling financially, adding a social purity constraint to their lives seems like a self sabotaging substitute where they are choosing for luck and opportunity to pass them over instead of accepting their circumstances and changing them. As though they can afford purity, without considering what it costs.
I do not even understand what the context of the word “purity” is in your comment. I find the whole theme of the comment to be bizarre.
> Dining out isn't about the food, it's about company and companionship, and I don't eat with anyone I'm not willing to pick up the entire tab for, because the pleasure of their company is well worth it. If their company is not worth that, I'd say that's the definition of wasted time.
I would go out almost every day of the week in my 20s in a very expensive city. With lots of different people, and random people could be invited at anytime by anyone. I certainly do not think it reasonable to want to, or even be able to, pick up the entire tab for all the groups one goes out with.
I am not talking about a small group or one on one meal with a friend you see once every year. For that, yes, paying or splitting evenly is not a big deal, although I would never let my friends consistently pay extra for me outside of occasions.
