Scott is apparently using a spelling checker, as was suggested to him many times in the seemingly endless pit thread of a few weeks ago. That’s a good thing. However, he still can’t handle homonyms. Post #9 had this:
.
I don’t know; I don’t know if there is a bright line. I don’t think that matters, either: somewhere between spending twenty bucks on entertainment and eight million bucks on entertainment, you stop being frugal.
This isn’t a courtroom; my attitude toward frugality may be inexactly defined without being unconstitutional. I suspect that very few people consider spending eight million bucks on gambling to be frugal, and that this is why Bennett was so roundly mocked.
That would be entirely different. Stocks tend to rise, so the net effect of investing is that you gain money. Casino gambling is a losing proposition.
Someone who’s frugal may invest eight million dollars. Someone who’s frugal will not blow it on slots.
Daniel
Why the fuck are you harping on this? Get over it. Move on. Deal with the topic and quit nitpicking little things.
Are you really so regimented that you need a bright line test? How about placing bets of more than 10% of your income in a year regardless of losses, or losses exceeding 5%. Another take would be betting more than 3% of your annual income in the course of a single month.
In the extreme, which I think is a reasonable interpretation, Frugality precludes all gambling. Full-stop.
That would be a perfectly valid point if Bennett were presenting himself as an pragmatic advisor offering tips on how to stay out of trouble. However, in reality, he is presenting himself as a source of moral enlightenment.
For Ghu’s sake, be sure to give me a heads-up when you offer an $8 million prize! 
I was inclined to agree with those who said Bennett did not qualify as a hypocrite for his gambling, since he had not condemned gambling prior to the exposure of his losses. I have become convinced by arguments in this thread that he does lack frugality and moderation. I’m curious to know which definition of hypocrisy is preferred by those currently arguing about Bennett’s gambling. Is a hypocrite one who praises or encourages a virtue he lacks, or one who falsely claims to live by such a virtue?
True. He’s not Oprah, or Jordan, or Seinfeld either. But he WAS wealthy enough to lose $8 million over the course of YEARS without it being any particular strain.
To me, as in, if I lost it, would it be excessive? Sure it would. It would be the height of irresposibility.
If Gates, or Oprah, or Seinfeld, or Buffett lost $1.4 million in two months, it wouldn’t seem excessive. Buffett’s worth about $44 billion. That loss would be less than one thousandth of one percent of his net worth…
Nothing, in other words.
If one stipulates that gambling is not in itself immoral, then one’s gambling losses are part of one’s personal entertainment budget.
I submit that the proper term for someone who racks up a multimillion dollar personal entertainment budget is “decadent”. Decadence is contrary to the moral virtues preached by Bennett.
Nitpick: it’d be a little more than three thousandths of a percent :).
Daniel
always helpful
I think we’ve reached the point where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe that a reasonably frugal lifestyle precludes all gambling. Perhaps my view is influenced by my own gambling; perhaps not. But I view gambling as entertainment - I win sometimes, I lose sometimes, but I enjoy the process. In the same way, I pay to see the opera. I enjoy the experience, even though, when it’s over, I have nothing material to show for my expenditure.
If I were a struggling college student, having trouble meeting my rent and food payments, it would NOT be moderate or frugal to buy season tickets to the opera. In my present financial condition, I do not believe it’s remotely violative of the principles of frugality or moderation. If I made ten times my present salary, I believe I could justify having box seats, or being a patron at some level beyond season tickets.
In other words, the issue of frugality and moderation is decided by weighing the expense against the resources from which it is drawn. I ansolutely reject the notion that there is a “bright-line” test of absolute dollar value.
Your notion of percentages has some merit, but I’d argue it should be percentage of net worth, not of income.
The inventiveness of the anti-Bennett crowd is certainly … robust.
“Decadent” = marked by decay or decline; OR characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence.
I assume the second meaning is the one you propose here.
I agree it’s self-indulgent to spend your money on your own entertainment. That’s practically definitional.
Am I “decadent” for having season tickets to the opera?
Any practitioner of any vice could say the same thing. But that leaves precious little room for a definition of moral vs. immoral conduct, though, and none whatever for a credible stand, despite your strenuous efforts to find a self-justifying one.
strain to whom? and sez who? From what I recall, his wife was astonished about the losses. Wonder what her take on “w/o particular strain” would be. (assuming one should hold one’s responsabilities to one’s family in higher regard than one’s personal amusement)
I don’t believe that you and I share agreement on a standard for moral and immoral conduct. I have no idea how you purport to judge whether conduct is moral or immoral.
Sez him. While his wife may have been astonished, it seems he was the one that handled the family finances, not she. So her astonishment does not translate into an inference that there was any strain – on the contrary, the very fact that she was surprised indictaes that prior to being told, she had no idea that they had lost that money… she didn’t miss it; it didn’t affect their lifestyle at all.
No one here is claiming that if a person spends X, they are not frugal, but if they had only spent (X-1), they would be. (Or if someone is, they are very strange.) I personally view it as being like a weather forecast. If I spend less then $2000 over the course of twenty years on entertainment, I am very likely to be either frugal or impoverished. Similarly, spending even one million dollars over twenty years solely on entertainment (one hundred thirty six dollars a day, every day) is as strongly correlated with not being moderate and frugal as looking out my window and seeing water coming from the sky is correlated with raining.
Of course, if you see no mental disconnect between ‘frugality’ and ‘spent millions of dollars on entertainment’, then I suggest that we’re not talking about the same word anymore.
Try again. This time, pay attention to the “…a multimillion dollar personal entertainment budget…” part.
How about this hypothetical:
A prominent figure who is a promoter of higher moral tone in society (including calls for moderation and eliminating the pernicious influences of various vices) is revealed to be a heavy drinker. Let’s say he puts away a six-pack of beer and half a bottle of wine every night, in additional to a couple of cocktails at lunch. He announces that this is no big deal, since he gets regular medical checkups and is in good health, his liver is fine etc. Since it’s not affecting his health, career or marriage, no big deal.
Now, our public figure knows full well that many, if not most other people could not continue this level of drinking for long without it being a serious detriment (perhaps fatal) to their lives. Does his position in this matter, in the light of his being an influential public figure and standard-bearer for moral and successful living compound his hypocrisy?
Translation: “I ain’t got shit on *this * subject, either, but, as usual, can’t make myself admit it to a mere non-lawyer.”
I don’t know if I can agree with “your standard” or not, because you obviously cannot define one, not without accusing yourself of violating it. Capisce, signore?
Your situation here would be much, much easier if you were willing to admit that you yourself had weaknesses like every other human - but then you wouldn’t get to pretend to yourself anymore that you represent a more advanced life form, would you?
But all this has been said before, and much better, by someone in a much better position to do so. Luke 6:42:
Jesus used to post here? What happened, did he get banned for snarking off to Polycarp?