If you think going to see a movie is on the same level of excess as a 100K automobile then you are either irrational or dishonest. Since you don’t seem to be unintelligent, I’ll just assume you are being dishonest.
Still won’t answer the questions honestly, will you kid?
Look, dummy. Do you need to see “My Pretty Pony” to live? No. Then it’s “excessive” by definition. How much more “excessive” is irrelevant, we’ve established what you are, now we’re just haggling over the price. By your own definition, you’re immoral.
You’re taking more than you “need” and diverting those resources to your pleasure rather than saving lives. Sure, the tiny fraction of people in the USA who own Maserati Quattroportes could sell them and save more lives, but still–you value your movies and internet more than other people’s lives. You’re just less successful so you can’t save as many lives by giving up luxuries. .
Fenris, you need to stop feeding the OP. You know what the OP is. Let it starve, after this post I intend to. Besides, if I didn’t I’d be guilty of keeping the child up past his bedtime.
Bye bye! It’s been fun! Pinches the little cutie’s cheek
Somehow, I doubt that separate from this conversation, you would ever categorize going to see a movie as excessive. Furthermore, I never claimed anyone should give up every dime and work in every hour to help those who are suffering. If you’re going to just keep making insults I see no need to reply to any more of your comments.
Hey, cut the kid some slack. He’s too young to realize that what is white and black to him are merely shades of grey to everyone else.
Anything you spend money on that is not necessary for survival is excessive luxury and therefore immoral.
Anything he spends that is not necessary for survival, but he likes, is merely an justifiable expense, and therefore, falls well within his moral boundaries. Your moral boundaries are just insults.
Are you seriously going to make the case that spending $15 on a movie ticket is the same level of excess as a 100K car? IS that your actual, real, response? Or are you jsut being polemic?
Yeah, you did. Your OP called people like me morally corrupt. That’s attacking. There are real people out here who perform the behavior you are judging. And then you are shocked when you get judged back? Your self awareness sucks.
Well, if your going to be black and white about it, what is the actual, real, difference? Morality is not about the level, but about the moral difference.
OK well I stand by my statements. Nobody needs a 100K car. It is excessive and unnecessary. We live in a warped materialistic society that honors the wrong things. If you take that as an attack upon your person, then so be it.
Nobody needs a $15 movie ticket.
Look, I don’t know where to draw the line and find the middle ground here. My step father owns over 20 motorcycles. My neighbor owns over 100 firearms. I think I can clearly say both examples are excessive. But a guy who owns three motorcycles or 7 firearms is probably not doing anything wrong. I’m afraid you’ll perceive my comments as being dictatorial or judgmental. I guess that they probably are. You could also fault me for not doing enough to help or for being critical when I myself do not have a job. But it is my very situation, the fact that only due to luck that I am not myself homeless, that gives me more consideration for people who actually are homeless. Before I had these troubles with depression and employment I rarely gave the matter much thought. I did do a lot of volunteer work and was generally a good person, but, my own troubles have caused to be much more concerned with the suffering of others. I know that in day to day life the gray areas are very hard to define but that doesn’t mean that our society as a whole is overly materialistic and excessive.
Where did I ever say people were supposed to give up every single thing they didn’t need? I said excessive luxury is wrong. I think you understand the difference. I doubt there is anything left to say if you are going to continue to exaggerate my claims in order to win the debate.
Does someone having excessive luxury cause another person to suffer? You haven’t proved this. How does having that $100,000 car directly cause someone else to be homeless? Just because they don’t NEED it? Besides, what one person considers “excessive”, another person might not – it’s all relative, you know.
Life is not a sum-zero game. We shouldn’t all have to be miserable, or give up something we really want, just because “don’t you know, there are kids out there that don’t have ANYTHING!” It’s like the “clean your plate, because there are starving kids in Africa!” schtick.
Look, if you’re suffering from depression, I’m sorry. But your whole theory is a load of bullshit. If you’re going to protest about people getting rich by exploiting others, yeah, I’m right behind you. But if you’re just protesting that people who are rich actually spend their money on themselves, even if they earned that money ethically? Well, that’s just fucking stupid.
You know what, I don’t expect you to agree with me. I wish you would. I started this thread mainly to be controversial and stir up a debate. I do wish people agreed with me but I can’t say I expect them too.
Having said that, is there no way that you could see yourself to even come close to what I’m talking about? To entertain the idea that, despite any good and logical political or economic reasoning, that, at the end of the day, people are more important than things and that properties like Mansions or cars that cost 100K are clearly excess and can be defined as nothing but a luxury? If you can accept the idea that people are more important than things, how can you defend extravagance with such vigor?
And not to be rude, honestly, but isn’t the idea that people are more important than things hard to disagree with, from a Moral stand point?
Also- I’m not saying people should have to give up or suffer or that no one should ever have a 100K car under any circumstances. I am simply saying that in general terms I think excessive luxury is wrong. As a society we could easily do without it.
I understand that’s a pretty big issue in Cuba - or not, depending on whether you’d like to get something from your surplus or just want everybody but you to be equally productive.
I really can’t understand why so many people equate A and B as the same
A- Excessive luxury is immoral and does not benefit society
B- No one should be allowed to have any extra money or anything nice
It could actually be more so. To a person who can afford a $100 K car, it may be less of a percentage of their total worth, than that $15 is to you. So you are wasting MORE than they are. it just depends on how you look at it.
From a philosophical POV, maybe, but within the bounds of reality 100K is 6,666 movie tickets, or, rent for a 2 bedroom apartment for one family for 7 years.
It was the case in the entire Soviet Block - the main reason the economy was in such a shambles is that nobody worked very hard, because nobody had any reason to.
So is it your assertion that if mansions and 100K became unfashionable in America and people actually started looking out for their neighbors, that this trend in thought away from rampant consumerism would turn us into the soviet union?