Prices for looks? Really?

[3hitm4g3u]

That 'pretty much' you speak of is the difference that matters. I myself am completely unbiased to the whole D leg/D skirt debate so I can tell you D skirt makes you look alot noobier. I'm not saying that should be something you should worry about but it's a fact.

 

You can't say you're unbiased and then state your biased opinion. It's not a fact; or do you mean to tell me women who wear skirts because they like the way they look makes you a noob? If so, my friend, I'd have to call extreme shenanigans.

 

People might value looks over efficiency, willing to shell out the cash for that. It's life. Why do people like fabriche eggs, when the same amount of money could buy them a better representation of Russian art and culture? Why does it matter so much, unless people are just upset that they're too expensive for them to buy themselves?

 

(Is that a general statement? Bet your [wagon] it is. But really, what's the reason to yell back and forth when everyone has legitimate points and really all it boils down to is opinions, which will never be unified? Ever?)

 

That's not a biased opinion in anyway. I wear neither dragon legs or dragon skirts, nor have I ever worn either of them. Obviously the discussion at hand is relating to guys wearing Dragon skirts, not guys who change their gender because they can't afford D legs (or, as you call them, women). That was a joke, but clearly my points were about guys in D skirts.

 

All it boils down to at the end of the day is whether you care if people think you're a noob or not. If you do care you'll fork out the extra 700k (it was an extra 2M or so the last time I had this conversation), if you don't care you'll buy a D skirt and save yourself 700k (even though both can be resold at any point).

The only people who will think you're a n00b for wearing a D skirt are n00bs. Intelligent people will think you're a n00b for trying to please them. So if you don't want the people who matter to think you're a n00b, you should use a skirt. Or better yet, just use barrows and screw dragon.

 

That's a pretty stupid comment.

[Laura]

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.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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..

[Range_This11]

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.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[Range_This11]

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.

You're doing a well enough job making an [wagon] out of yourself as it is :) I'll leave it as is. Keep on keepin' on, dude.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[Range_This11]

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.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[Range_This11]

You're not using any argument I had. I agree with Qeltar completely.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[stonewall337]

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.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[stonewall337]

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.

 

IE, yes, if we are talking about mainstream RS players, which we are.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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?

[3hitm4g3u]

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?

 

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.

[qeltar]

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.'

Uh.. it's possible to have more than one argument against something. The second doesn't invalidate the first.

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.'

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

 

There's a qualitative difference between saying "I wear dragon platelegs because I think they look cool" and saying "I wear dragon platelegs because if I wear a skirt I'll look like a noob".

People want to look good as it makes them feel good.

Then they should ask themselves why. Most people won't, because they're afraid of the answer.

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.

Ironically, it's the sort of discrimination against which I am arguing, and for which you are reinforcing.

So, spending some extra cash to 'look good' is nothing bad, in fact, it's normal.

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.

 

But in the real world it is a different matter.

 

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.

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[Fellfrosch6]

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.

 

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. ;)

[Pr3c1pit0us]

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.

[Fellfrosch6]

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.

 

Value does include both. It isn't solely performance or looks. It's a balance between both and which aspect is worth more is completely dependent on the buyer and seller. Some people prefer looks. Others prefer performance. Some prefer both and so, they pay more money! :smile:

[qeltar]

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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 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.

 

If you consider looking good frivolous, then go ahead. I'm sure you'll understand soon enough when you stop living in the clouds.

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.

[TTanT]

So, I say that people like to look good.

 

Sadly, the majority of people consider 'looking good' to be 'looking expensive'.

 

So, items like party hats skyrocket.

 

Other items, such as dragon plate legs, go up simply because the accepted norm in Runescape is Dragon legs, not a dragon skirt.

 

 

 

Am I right or am I wrong?

[nerdboyxxx]

Its all aesthetics really. If the Dragon platelegs look better than the skirt, expect the platelegs to cost more because of the demand.

 

In all fairness d skirt looks quite bad. Even though looks shouldn't matter, it does to most people now (for example, dragon equipment is now obsolete, and considered a waste of time. Far better gear is out there).

 

What they should do is graphically rework d skirt so it looks kinda like the tassets of bandos. That would look extremely mad IMO :D.

[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.