Pr3c1pit0us
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Pr3c1pit0us
-
-
It's not automatic -- it's learned.
You seem to enjoy your societal conditioning; I did not, and I unlearned it.
I don't respect people who drive $200,000 cars. I respect those who do good works with t heir money.
Where has this gotten you?
That's a rather weak argument against charity. Nobody is perfect, but giving charity makes one a lot closer to it than blowing it on luxury items to try to impress strangers.
It would be a weak argument against charity if your were arguing from a standpoint in reality. You're assuming everyone should be living in their means, and if everyone is, then no one would be poor. Period.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. My world is one where people don't try to impress others with clothes and cars. Yours is the superficial one.
I am not speaking in the hypothetical, either. Try getting out of the bar/restaurant/club/mall scene sometime and talking to real people.
Last time I checked, we're in the same world.
I did. The very thing that makes women feel like they need to look like models is the superficial, image-judging sort of culture that you embrace and I reject. You're part of the problem.
I don't necessarily embrace it, but it is a facet of this world that is and will always be here. So, why not make the best of it rather than dismissing it?
My guess is that you're pretty young. I'm not. I've been where you are, and believe me, I know where the clouds hang out.
Alright, old chap.
-
Hey man! Don't be blaming the economics! :P
PS: Just to address the "Bang for the Buck" term that you mentioned earlier, here is the definition of the term:
Bang for the Buck
value for the money spent; excitement for the money spent; a favorable cost-to-benefit ratio. (Expressed as an amount of bang for the buck.)
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002
Key word here being Value! Not performance. ;)
I've always thought it could go for both. Performance or looks, when you see a good deal something just goes off in your head, haha.
-
Uh.. it's possible to have more than one argument against something. The second doesn't invalidate the first.
Simply put, you didn't argue both, you changed stance.
Do you *really* need help with understanding the difference between spending $100,000 on say, cleft palate surgery for destitute children in Africa, and spending it on a fancy car? If so, that's pretty sad.
Check out this quote:
To make my stance even clearer, I must admit that I think you guys are coming from this in the wrong direction. You base it off an assumption that everyone is 100% efficient and lives in their means to the fullest, and (I guess) gives all their money away to charity (which doesn't make sense, because everyone is living in their means).
My statements are merely saying that as social beings, we put social status (as in better things and the like) on a higher priority automatically and you guys aren't immune.
To clear it up even more: if everyone was living perfect, as they should be in your mind, there would be no need for charity of any kind.
Bringing "civilizations" into this is a red herring. There are some socities -- and portions of them -- where dress is very important, and others where it is of no consequence at all. There are even societies where everyone wears the same thing specifically *so that* dress is not used as a key factor to differentiate people.
Basically, what I got from this was 'I'm not going to even attempt to address the point in question here and make you look foolish in the process.'
Well, I think it is a lot more prevalent than you claim, especially among the younger urban crowd, which has been brainwashed into valuing superficial nonsense instead of what really matters.
Again, you're the one living in this superficial world where everyone is supposed to follow rules and everyone is equal. While I must concede that it would make the world a lot easier, you're arguing a fictional premise.
Then they should ask themselves why. Most people won't, because they're afraid of the answer.
Because feeling good is bad....
Ironically, it's the sort of discrimination against which I am arguing, and for which you are reinforcing.
Oh, the ironing. Address my point.
I don't care about people spending money to "look good" in RS -- it's just a game after all, and thanks to all the trade restrictions, it's not like you can really do anything constructive with a bunch of cash.
Then why have you argued so vigorously for such a moot point?
But in the real world it is a different matter.
In the real world, looks matter more than most things. The first thing people see is how you look. People make the first judgment on you based on how you look. It's not fair, but it's life.
If you want to blow your money on frivolous nonsense, you have every right to do so (as long as it's your money, of course.) But there are consequences to choices, and you are judged based on your spending decisions every bit as much as on your clothing.
It may be "normal" for some people to want to blow money on looking good. That doesn't necessarily mean it is anything to be proud of. It's a function of social conditioning, and something that people who have better priorities understand and move beyond.
If you consider looking good frivolous, then go ahead. I'm sure you'll understand soon enough when you stop living in the clouds.
And, on another note:
Stop looking for logic in a Tip.it debate.
Go 'debate' on RSOF for a bit if you need some practice on how to act on Tip.it.
Are you insulting Tip.it or me? I don't seem to understand.
-
IE, yes, if we are talking about mainstream RS players, which we are.
So, you deem my opinion invalid just because you have higher stats? Who are you to make that judgment call?
-
Once again, by looking at people's stats, it is fairly easy to see which people actually have the items, and can make an argument, or can afford them, chose not too, and make a valid argument, and which people have no idea WTF they are talking about. EG precipitous. No offense intended, simply an observation.
Honestly, the argument seems to me to come down to a few main divisions of people who are affected by this discussion, but only for aesthetic qualities, not things such as bandos, arma, ranger boots, etc.
This would include things such as black cav, a large amount of TT clothing, etc.
Personally, if I like what my skilling outfit looks like, I am far less likely to get bored.
ITP: If you don't have the stats, you can't form a valid opinion even though money making =/= skill in game.
-
Ah, I understand now.
To make my stance even clearer, I must admit that I think you guys are coming from this in the wrong direction. You base it off an assumption that everyone is 100% efficient and lives in their means to the fullest, and (I guess) gives all their money away to charity (which doesn't make sense, because everyone is living in their means).
My statements are merely saying that as social beings, we put social status (as in better things and the like) on a higher priority automatically and you guys aren't immune.
-
I already argued this point. Why don't you read through the topic. Qeltar started posting because another poster and I were getting into it over some bs economic term. Then you called him out. Now I'm laughing.
I just would like to know why this would be any reason to act with such hostility towards me?
Especially now that I know I am somewhat using an argument you have already argued.
-
You guys are the ones making a debate into a mud slinging contest. You come in, no argument in hand, just to throw around some insults and don't even have the common courtesy to back your insults up.
-
Stop changing your stance Qeltar.
Your "arguments" make me want to kill myself :(
Sorry you don't agree with me, buddy.
You don't have to agree or disagree with someone to think their argument is complete garbage.
Not only did the fact that the person put arguments in quotes, leading me to believe they don't agree with them, and the fact they make such a rash statement leads me to believe that they don't like my arguments because they don't agree with me. But, you are correct, you can agree/disagree and still don't like the argument presented.
However, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Show me why you don't like my statements.
-
Even civilizations, that didn't have contact with other civilizations, went extinct because the civilization itself was 'alone.'
I wouldn't have used the word 'extinct' in that context, but I'll spare the semantics. While I agree that people are social animals (and as you said, do not-perhaps cannot-live without social interaction), I would be prepared to argue against the statement that I quoted from your post. There are numerous examples of civilizations in the real world which, at one point, were isolated by the surrounding geography or by choice. Perhaps the most notable of the latter example would be the Chinese civilizations. Despite being in a caught in a constant renewal of a dynastic cycle, dictated for some time by the mandate of heaven, and an era of feudalism, I would not go so far as to say that the Chinese went extinct. Admittedly, it has been a while since I have studied Chinese material and while the specifics might have blurred from my perception, I do know two things: China was isolated for a long period of time and they, nor their traditions, are extinct. Isolationism can bring many harmful results and it may be difficult to see the favorable products, but I would be prepared to argue that isolationism does not always equate or result in extinction of any groups, peoples, or traditions.
I was merely making a blanket statement to make a point.
And to simply add more, I will agree with you on the statement that isolationism doesn't always breed extinction; however, you must be willing to give in on that China was, and still is, a very big nation. So even though they were isolated, they still had several different resources to sustain themselves.
I was more thinking of various tribes living in a relatively short distance (perhaps a week on foot?) within each other and still being isolated. Thus, not having enough resources to gather, no trade, etc..
-
Stop changing your stance Qeltar.
Your "arguments" make me want to kill myself :(
Sorry you don't agree with me, buddy.
-
Just to keep this going (:D)...
You say you don't make passive judgements on people, yet introduce a caveat onto the same sentence.
You talk of people being insecure, and you did a good job keeping up with that argument. But you quickly change the stance to 'use over non-use.'
You talked of how you should be spending money for a better cause, getting only the cheapest for yourself and use the extra elsewhere. You don't define the use for this extra cash except 'good.'
People want to look good for themselves and for others, it is true. Everything you have stated on that fact is fact. However, the light from which you are approaching is dim. You say people only do this because of insecurities, yet don't take into the fact that humans are social beings in the forefront. Humans aren't designed to live alone. I'm sure you've studied civilizations in the past. Even civilizations, that didn't have contact with other civilizations, went extinct because the civilization itself was 'alone.'
This insecurity issue only goes skin deep and isn't an issue at all. I'm sure, just as every case has an exception, that people dress 'loud' to get attention, but this isn't the case a majority of the time. People want to look good as it makes them feel good. Appearance is a great issue in social status. Just talk many obese people and they will tell you how'd they like to be skinny. Not only for health reasons, but to be social again, to interact with others. This is because they are put under a distinct discrimination almost as bad as racism.
So, spending some extra cash to 'look good' is nothing bad, in fact, it's normal. Living out of your means is something I am not advocating as that would only lead to problems. But using some extra cash to buy a more expensive shirt here and there is fine. Just as it would be fine to spend some extra cash in a game to make your character look good.
-
Stop changing your stance Qeltar.
I have yet to see a single valid argument from you. All you keep saying is, "HURR DURR U DUMB?1"
Wait, what?
You've got to be kidding me...
-
Stop changing your stance Qeltar.
-
Only when money and superficiality are one's priorities.
You make it sound like that for everyone to live in their means is for everyone to not spend a little extra money.
Just because you're living in your means doesn't mean you should be watching every penny, getting the cheapest stuff. What are you going to do with that extra money? You get items that are comfortable in your budget.
Anyway, you've made several comments about superficial stuff and thrown around a couple of big words. Pretty funny stuff, makes you sound smart. That's called putting up a 'front.'
The same way you 'front' when you're wearing nice clothes or what have you.
-
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.
To me, the car says "Look how messed up my priorities are."
And to this, when you've got the money, then your priorities are all in check. It would be different if the person was poor and took out a loan for a Rolls Royce (how I don't know).
But, anyhow, enjoy living in your own world.
-
Sweet a laptop...
False alarm. It's a Dell!
Free laptop is a free laptop
-
It is the difference between doing what you feel is right and works for you, and living your life based on an insecurity-driven need to impress others.
I laughed pretty hard, to be honest.
You guys are so out of the loop it's funny.
Yes, people look good for other people, but most of that isn't based on insecurities. Going to an interview? Hell, you might as well just show up in whatever you want to show you're a real independent man.
There are always exceptions, but the majority of people that want to look good just honestly want to look good. What do you instantly think of when you see someone whose dress is really unappealing? You think that person is unappealing, obviously.
And, on top of what I just said, good dress gives a sense of prestige. Why do you think that a Rolls Royce is way more expensive than a Toyota, Mazda, Ford, etc.? They are both cars and they both get you from A to B, so what's the point in throwing down an extra 100 thousand dollars? It's because of the prestige that comes with the car. The says 'look at me and what I've accomplished.' This is the way things work for anything in life. Certain neighborhoods are more expensive to live in, clothes, watches, everything.
This is the same for party hats and other various items. They give a sense of prestige and value. Yes, they wouldn't have this aura surrounding them if they were common and worth next to nothing. But that's not what makes an item valuable.
-
What's wrong with wanting to look good?
-
With the family crest gold gloves, do you get the extra xp when superheating gold ore into gold bars?
-
I've done both Throne of Miscellania and Royal Trouble, how much money should I invest for maximum returns?
I'm looking for a good amount of coal. I've seen an upward of 500 coal per day. I would love this as I could use it leveling my magic.
-
Covering the major cities with a layer of snow would be nice.
This is something I can agree with.
This is why I love playing Guild Wars during the Christmas holiday. It's the only game I've known to take the holiday very seriously -- tons of events, actual snow in game, great rewards.
-
Yea, you get smithing XP when using Superheat item.
It's not the full amount, if I recall. Something like 1/3rd maybe. I forget.
But, yes, you get smithing xp.
-
why is it "the best"?
Because I said so? :P
Haha, I dunno.
Prices for looks? Really?
in General Discussion
Posted
Well, of course, but he was just too easy to be left alone.