You, sir, are wrong. So utterly wrong, I have gotten several dozen healthy laughs out of your misconceptions, misspellings, and mistakes, as they were plenty abundant.
Allow me to fix this.
I fail to see how:
1. You are implying I am ?jaded?
And
2. That I ?settled? for anyone, unless you are quoting some popular song lyrics?
Your first post in this thread sounds mighty jaded to me. I quote:
To which I say, good luck....like it or not the masses have embraced the concept of the diamond ring as the standard for engagements and weddings, and many women do like the look of them a great deal, sure marketing and market manipulation may have played a significant part in this, but you can market an ugly thing all day long and it still won't sell, there has to be some draw outside of the marketing for a product to truly become popular.
So sure, you can hold out and try and find the *perfect* significant other that shares in your hatred or distaste for the diamond industry, or even better you can try and train whomever you are with to hate diamonds as much as you do...all I can say is good luck if my fiancee likes the look of diamonds I am certainly not going to spoil the fun for her that is for sure.
What you're saying is that it's a relatively lost cause to attempt to find someone who is neither materialistic or brainwashed by the diamond industry? That sound pretty jaded to me.
Further, I never said you settled for anyone - I said you've resigned to settling for SOMEONE. I'm saying that based on how you worded your posts, it sounds like, in the future, if you meet someone half-decent, you'd be willing to compromise even if that person disagrees with ideals to which you hold very dear.
I fully realize that I'm going to have a hard time finding the right match - They don't make many libertarian nontheists these days, and they don't make many intellectual and sensual beings either - And finding someone who is both is going to be a tough task. But I'll never settle for second-best, something you seem to encourage.
The rest of your argument/post just sounds like more justification for your frugality, sure you might sugar coat it with phrases like ?faith in humankind?, and some odd ?hope that there are people in the world who aren't materialistic and shallow?, but in the end what it really comes down to is that since you don?t see any value in said items then there mustn?t be any.
No, what it comes down to is that there ISN'T any value in said items. That'd be like saying Enron's stock was worth something - It never was, even when everyone THOUGHT it was. An artificial value that seems like it will last indefinitely is nonetheless an artificial value. Anyone smart enough to see through it would see that. You don't seem willing to.
Don't even try and make this about frugality. That's NOT what it is about. I don't know how many times you were dropped on your head as a baby, but my problem with diamonds stems from the fact the money has a great chance of supporting THE worst conglomerate in existance today.
Which is why I find it funny and ironic that you can sit and pass judgment on jewelry items as being a waste of money and then talk about how you place value in things that *you* find important like your computer and your audio equipment, which are both from a resale standpoint a complete waste, Items which are outdated faster than you can snap your finger. I can only seriously hope that someone as practical and frugal as you are did not spend any more than $500 on either your computer or your home audio equipment as really anything more than that is simply a waste of money. Funny how different people can see things in a different light.
No, what's funny is how f*cktarded someone would have to be to realize they're spewing more crap than a septic tank. The computer serves a function. I think anyone here on AT would agree with that. My audio equipment (by which, I mean my portable MP3 CD player, my MP3 CD car deck, my car speakers, and my headphones) serves a function. I think anyone here who enjoys music would agree with that.
However, on a FUNCTIONAL level, a diamond serves no purpose whatsoever to me. Nor does it serve a functional purpose to anyone outside of industry. Truly, the only thing diamonds are good for is cutting things - And that's all they should be relegated to. If De Beers diamonds were selling for $1 per pound to industry for use in manufacturing, there wouldn't be an argument. But they're being sold out outrageously high prices to people who don't realize that those outrageously high prices lead to more death and suffering in the heart of Africa than someone with a conscience can comprehend. If they sold for $1 per pound, there'd be no way the civil wars in Africa could be financed, as it well should be.
Would you be upset if someone whom you were attracted to found no worth whatsoever in either item and had a personal grudge against both the industries and the products (also hope you are running Linux, because if you are a Microsoft fan then you?re a hypocrite).
You're right, Microsoft products has lead to the death of thousands of software engineers in the greater Seattle region.
NEWS FLASH: Dumbtarded analogies will only further make yourself look like an asshat.
To a strictly logical person like you diamonds may be ?un-functional? (is this even a word?) and thus worthless, but then to many they are beautiful and they enjoy the look enough to buy them, they do not become outdated like your computer or your home audio equipment and they can be passed on to your children and have sentimental value, as really that is what is attached with the item, you are not putting so much weight on the actual material good, but rather the memory that accompanies something that lasts forever (or at least as long as you do, and if something should happen then such is life and nothing is perfect). You cannot get ?sentimental value? with a stereo, a computer or most other commercial goods that you might deem as ?functional? and ?worth it?.
Once again, an argument that at least had some potential was rendered moot by your logical fallacies.
A freshly bought diamond does not have sentimental value - Therefore, that "function" as you claim, simply does not exist. I never spoke out about handing down diamonds that have unfortunately already been bought, in fact, I encourage it - That's one less diamond that needs to be purchased.
In fact, diamonds do last nearly forever - At least, until the natural chemical breakdown of the carbon bonds causes it to deteriorate, after something like....1000 years. So why is it that we need to keep buying diamonds. Shouldn't the millions sold before 1975 be in the possession of people's predecessors? How is it they're still moving so many diamonds at such high prices?
You're right, computers become outdated. But guess what - They serve a function. For me, they serve several DOZEN. Therefore, it is a worthwhile expenditure. Diamonds on the other hand, freshly purchased, have no sentimental value, have an artificial monetary value, and result in the funding of a corporation whose is plague on this earth.
And I hate to break it to you but any major commercially marketed good can be defined in as something that is a result of brainwashing, human rights travesties, and greed. Look at the auto industry, oil as mentioned before, high end computer goods, athletic apparel (hope you don?t wear any Nike goods that were made in their sweat shops), blah-blah-blah and the list goes on, if you are going to be self-righteous then do so, sell all of your material possessions and be done with it, but to pass judgment on one industry in the name of ?faith in mankind? and then be an avid supporter of industries such as high tech audio and computer components which contribute great amounts of waste because of equipment that is frequently upgraded, not to mention the sweat shops where the components are built, the companies that grossly overprice their customers for products that cost them pennies?.well it just seems hypocritical.
Computer equipment is built in sweatshops? I wasn't aware that there were little Philipino children working in DUST-FREE ROOMS soldering computer equipment. Maybe you should check your facts.
And I agree on the Nike thing. I won't purchase any clothing manufactured in such conditions, and it's a shame others don't do the same. The greatest strength we have as consumers is the ability to "vote" with our feet; don't buy products which are built at the expense and suffering of our fellow man, and those companies will crumble. Unfortunately, defeatists like you ruin the ability to do so.
And finally, with re. ?how are diamonds real? I really don?t understand the question, they are real because they are mined from the ground and not man made like Synthetics plain and simple.
Hrm, let's see. These so-called "synthetics" are physical objects, yes? And they look, feel, and behave like what they're replicating does? How are they any less "real"?
Do they look pretty? Yes.
Do they look nice on a ring? Yes.
Will they last longer than 10 generations of your bloodline? Yes.
Is there the slightest chance that people died as a result of their creation? Nope.
That's the biggest difference right there.
must say I am sorry for using the comparison in the previous thread, it was only a vessel to determine just what type of a spender you are and what you find value in, like I said that one question alone summed it up for me, you are not the type to buy anything considered a ?luxury? which means no Porsche, BMW, Ferrari, Corvette, Austin Martin or even Lincoln or Lexus for you, you are not the type to put value in classic items like nice fountain pens, expensive watches, fine wine, or nice cigars...You don't even aspire to own such things and or you do not appreciate them from a marketing, business or product standpoint, you aspire to own very logical things like a low end Toyota, honda, or dare I say Kia. While there is nothing wrong with this mentality, and providing you apply yourself then you should always be able to live to your means and enjoy it, you are primarily concerned with low price and things that only interest you. I can only assume your lack of interest in classical items is a product of your age (Ahh, just checked your profile and you are only 22, makes sense now) but again that is only an assumption on my part and I have met many older people who have no taste whatsoever.
And once again, you prove you don't know the slightest thing about me.
What makes those cars luxury? Think about it for a moment. Many of them, Jaguar, Lincoln, Lexus, are built on the same platform as cars which are not "luxury" in nature. So it can't be the platform itself which makes them luxury. They often contain the same drivetrain components, or slightly upgraded versions. So that must not make them luxury. They have high-end audio equipment pre-installed, but a normal car can have a BETTER system installed at much less cost - So it can't be that which makes them luxury.
Is it the leather? I don't like leather. It looks pretty, sure, but in the summer, it gets blazing hot, sticky, and utterly uncomfortable. In the winter, it gets frigid and threatens to send a chill to your bones, even after the heat has come on.
Is it the faux-wood and metal interiors? Some people don't like faux wood. I think it's gaudy and silly. Give me a light gray, molded plastic interior any day.
Is it the built-in navigation systems and DVD players? I know how to get to where I'm going, and I don't need to watch a movie while driving. Utter waste of money.
No, I see luxury as a way to get a car which will make most idiots turn their heads and think "he has money, he has a luxury car!" Luxury cars are nothing more than a status symbol, they serve no function other than to make up for your own inadequacies.
Neurotic as I may be at times, I don't let my inadequacies stifle my sense of realism. To me, the perfect car would be a FWD, 200 hp, 200 ft-lb, 2-door midsize car, with a curb weight of under 3200 lbs, with a custom-designed audio system, grey cloth seats, grey plastic acoutrements, excellent handling, and of equal importance - RELIABLE.
That's me. I wouldn't force someone to drive that, because it probably won't suit them. But for you to lambast me because of my choices is extremely presumptuous of you.
Finally, you are wrong on the fine things. As I've stated before, I love a good H. Upmann cigar with a snifter of tawny port, or a rich cheesecake accompanied with a flute of Bonny Doon Muscat vin de glaciere, and I especially love strolling around in a two-piece suit, tie, and tie clip. With my $5 sunglasses. But that is only on occasion, because at this juncture in my life, luxuries are things which are to be enjoyed on a sporadic basis.
I also enjoy the simple things, lots of laughter, watching a fiery sunset, or the feel of a pencil in my hands as I draw beautiful things. I mostly enjoy the simple things.
That doesn't imply that if I had the means, I wouldn't enjoy the finer things in life. You seem to incorrectly draw that conclusion.
In a way I envy you as you will never want or desire anything that is expensive (or at least you will never admit to it), but then again if I did live like you I would never have anything to strive for or any hobbies that interest me as I would deem them all a waste of money.
Envy me not because my tastes are simple, because some of them are, some of them aren't.
Envy me because I'm realistic and enjoy the finer things only when I can afford to.
Envy me because I have principles which, in adhering to, make my life more difficult and open to ridicule by simpletons like yourself.
Envy me most because I'm able to strive towards a goal, even though that goal is not lined with silk and gold. Or blood diamonds.
. In a way I envy you as you will never want or desire anything that is expensive (or at least you will never admit to it), but then again if I did live like you I would never have anything to strive for or any hobbies that interest me as I would deem them all a waste of money. 
Facebook
Twitter