One other note I forgot. I’m not sure that I entirely agree with Bricker, but there’s no doubt that when defining frugality, percentage’s must be taken into account.
Everything in life is relative and this is no different. Just because $8 million might seem like a lot to you, that means jack shit in the real world of wealth and poverty. Take an orphan in Africa who doesn’t have food, clothing or even running water. Would you look very frugal to them when you walk out of Best Buy with your $2000 flat screen tv?
That’s my point. If you’re poor and I’m rich, anything I buy will look extravagant to you. In reality, Gates buying that tv is no different than you or I buying a meal at Wendy’s. In fact you or I may go have a nice dinner somewhere that could of fed one orphan for a week. Does that mean that we’re wasteful and should never eat out because someone else sees it as excessive? Can only poor people therefore be frugal?
According to what you’re saying, Bill Gates can never be anything but frugal.
I can afford a $2000 TV. I don’t see a need for one in my life. Even if a TV is necessary, a $2000 TV isn’t. That’s true for everyone. If you treat yourself to luxuries, you aren’t frugal. You aren’t attempting to save money.
It isn’t a character flaw. As a reminder, frugality isn’t something I find particularly admirable. Living within your means might be a virtue, but frugality isn’t to me.
Put me down on the absolutist side regarding the definition of frugal. No one who spends a million bucks on entertainment is frugal. Percentages? Well, maybe there’s a little leeway, but as the number increase, we rapidly reach the point where the appropriate label is ‘relatively frugal’ rather than ‘frugal’ simpliciter. In any event, to be frugal it is absolutely mandatory to spend money wisely and efficiently, regardless of how much you’re spending. If there’s a less efficient way to spend entertainment money than high stakes video poker, I’d like to know what it is. No way, no how is anyone who feeds millions of dollars into video poker machines frugal.
I wasn’t clear. I mentioned that people who gamble for a living aren’t really “gambling” and what you quoted about the chances of winning being low, I thought that was enough, my fault.
I was using the generic “gambling” for the type of gambling in which your chances of winning are so low you may as well burn your money. As Bricker and now you noted you can play games that rely more on skill than luck and reduces your risk…however video slots which Bennett played isn’t one of them.
It’s true that video poker is a game of skill and I’ve heard people claim that they can win consistently. I however am skeptical of the fact that a casino would allow a computer poker game to be legit. Video poker may be a step up from the pull and pray of slots, but in the end it’s a program running whatever it wants to. No real dice, no real cards, no real or random chance.
The law in Nevada and New Jersey requires that video poker conforms to real card chances… that is, if you’re dealt an inside straight, you have exactly the same chance to fill it on a draw that you would if a real deck of cards was being used.
That was posted later. :rolleyes: Further, it agrees with you only on a single very limited point, the greater issue you already having abandoned (but without admitting it).
Have you taken the time to consider why that sentiment is so common, or consider that there might be some grain of truth to it? How many people have to tell you you’re drunk before you go lie down? How long are you going to go on pretending that there’s a standard of morality that deplores all the other vices on the standard list except for the one you engage in?
Until someone provides a cogent argument that causes me to change my mind. There are people in this thread that are equipped to do so: they have the integrity and ability to follow logical argument. In this case, thus far, the arugments presented have been unavailing, but I’m curious to see where Daniel is going to go with his idea about Bennett’s own admission creating the requisite hypocrisy. But both Sampiro and Homebrew have engaged the substance of the argument, read what I was saying, and answered it. Based on that, I’d say they have a shot at driving a stake into my argument.
You (and Jackmanii) on the other hand, are apparently hopelessly confused by adult concepts like logical argument. So I’d hazard a guess that you, personally, have about as much chance of changing my mind as I have of bedding Helen Hunt.
To answer, again, the point that you raise: gambing is not, per se, a vice. It does not therefore belong on a “standard list” of vices, and a person condemning the “standard list” of vices does not by implication or directly condemn gambling.
The thing which amuses me about the whole weasel, turtle, etc. line of discussion is that it appears to me that some of the people arguing againstBricker are holding on to their side of the argument with every bit as much tenacity and conviction as Bricker is holding on to his. And with an approximately equal likelihood of persuading those on the other side.
I’m not convinced that either a bright line total amount of money or a percentage of income make a whole lot of sense with respect to frugality. Frugality is a concept I have a hard time balancing with gambling- but I’m not sure that gambling in moderation is a horrendous vice.
This is a standard device used in the past by Stoid - post a collection of drivel, then bob, weave and ignore the flood of evidence and logical refutations hurled against you, until someone comes along who agrees with you. Then you can point to that in triumph and suck up to your supporter until complete nausea ensues.
I personally am disgusted by someone who invents definitions and concepts to suit his own predilections, argues against positions his opponents have not presented instead of addressing the points they have raised, commits ad hominems and then piously denounces others for doing the same (in the Pit, no less), and in general conducts himself in the most flagrantly dishonest manner I’ve seen here in a long time.
As a result, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to read another Bricker post without this image coming to mind.
One good thing - I’d bet that in the future when Bricker is pouring his own dough down the gambling chute, this debate will stick in the back of his mind. Maybe it’ll stimulate him to be a bit more “frugal” - who knows?
Not sure. Are you referring to burning money as you characterized it in post #279? I never answered that post, by the way, because I have never heard of anyone who would honestly derive enjoyment out of watching money burn – and ONLY money burn. I don’t believe you can point to a single case of such a person existing in real life.
However, if such a person did exist, someone who truly and honestly derived such satisfaction from burning cash, and only cash, and he burned cash in such small percentages, relative to his income and resources… then such a person would be frugal. I realize that this sounds completely off the wall… but the reason it sounds completely off the wall is not because of my definition of frugality, but because you’ve invented a case that would never exist in real life.
Now, turning our attention to this question… if you enjoyed video poker without understanding it, and played for reason of that enjoyment, in appropriate fraction of your resources, then I’d say it’s not wasteful.
You know, Bricker, it is simply false to say that ‘frugal’ is identical in meaning to ‘living within one’s means’, as you persist in doing. It means, as you yourself have said, “economy in the use of resources”, which means using resources efficiently and sparingly. It simply does not mean “not using more resources than are available to you”. That you should persist in arguing this for so long is simply bizarre.
[ul]
[li]Gambling is entertainment[/li][li]The amount of money you may spend on entertainment while remaining “frugal” is a function of your financial resources[/li][li]Bennett’s expenditures on entertainment were within that level for a person of his financial resources[/li][/ul]
It absolutely is what you’re arguing. Your second bullet point requires it to be the case that frugal means simply living within your means. If it means efficient and sparing use of resources, then what counts as frugal doesn’t depend on your level of resources. All that’s required is that you use them efficiently and sparingly.
Look, your argument entails that Bill Gates can do any damn thing he pleases and remain frugal. He could behave identically to Richard Pryor in Brewster’s Millions, intentionally wasting as much money as he possibly can, and so long as he derives a smidgen of pleasure from it you are bound to call him frugal, because that level of spending won’t have any noticeable impact on his net worth. That’s a reductio of your position if I’ve ever seen one. Spending millions on entertainment simply isn’t frugal. It’s lavish. It’s profligate. It’s the direct opposite of frugal. The fact that someone can afford to be lavish and profligate without hurting their economic position doesn’t mean that they thereby become frugal. To suggest otherwise is simply to fail to understand the nature of frugality.
