Pr3c1pit0us

Well, of course, but he was just too easy to be left alone.

Where has this gotten you? 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. Last time I checked, we're in the same world. 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? Alright, old chap.

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.

Simply put, you didn't argue both, you changed stance. Check out this quote: 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. 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.' 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. Because feeling good is bad.... Oh, the ironing. Address my point. Then why have you argued so vigorously for such a moot point? 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 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: Are you insulting Tip.it or me? I don't seem to understand.

So, you deem my opinion invalid just because you have higher stats? Who are you to make that judgment call?

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 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.

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.

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..

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.

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.