Mach Five,
Thank you for proving my point with your monster response. It is nice to know when you are right about judging a persons character, and boy was I right....I should have gone into psychology.
Thanks again and good luck.
Thank you for proving my point with your monster response. It is nice to know when you are right about judging a persons character, and boy was I right....I should have gone into psychology.
Thanks again and good luck.
and you comment on my spelling mistakes?? again, you are young what else would I expect. You don't find value in certain things which others do, and that is fine....but like I said, good luck...I don't envy your values at all, too much of a headache and too much baggage.
The character of not wanting to support a oppresive monopoly? Yeah...I'd say he has better character then *some* who are posting here.....
*hint hint*
Shockwave, if it were that simple it would be one thing, but this isn't the case...if he were truly against monopolistic practices and companes that were detrimental to society and the enviroment then there are many, many, many other companies and products he would not be supportive of, for example he stated in another post that he enjoys a nice cigar...tabacco hello? the wrongdoings of the Diamond industry pale in comparison yet he has no problems smoking a stogie...also from his response to my Microsoft comment I feel it is safe to assume he is a Windows user, i don't think I even have to explain that here....
Also I never said that I supported the past actions of the Diamond industry however I think if one is going to micro-analyze an industry for "shady" practices in the name of self righteousness then they should look at all companes...why stop at one unless there is some alterior motivation...which in Mach's case is clearly the desire not to spend money on things he deems as "useless"
It is also funny that he is willing to discredit someone in the future should they find value in something he does not, say he finds the perfect woman and she likes leather seats in her car, or she appreciates nice things in general....going by his reponses he is willing to not persue a relationship just because of slight materialistic differences....personally I might be so bold as to say he has yet to enter a real relationship with anyone as most who have know it is all about compromise and accepting that not eveyone shares the same views.
Like I said before, the character issue does not revolve around this one issue (Diamonds), look at his responses in threads pertaining to Automobiles, Sunglasses or other items which people deem "expsnsive" and "luxurious"...it wouldn't be bad if he came out and said that "he doesn't like" said items, but here he is trying to influence others that they are somehow bad or foolish for liking said things...something which I don't think others should have the right to do, people should be able to like what they want to and if it gives them enjoyment then so be it, I for one am not to intrude on the happiness of others as I would not like it if they did it to me...heck I know there are more than a few that think my computer spending and useage is a complete waste but they understand it is what interests me and what I value thus they respect it.
Plain and simple.
Also in response to another point that Mach brought up, he said that new freshly cut diamonds do not have any sentimental value, to which I agree..however it is the act of givinig it and the timeframe which it is given that allows such an item to aquire sentimental value. I am not saying that this pertains solely do diamonds, heck it could be rubies, emeralds, or even a box of kleenex..
However, and I know I sound somewhat materialistic with this one, the pure expense of the item shows that someone had to put some effort into aquiring it. It sounds wrong but I know that they value it more because it shows you were willing to put more effort into aquiring it...
My fiancee did not demand that she have a diamond ring, heck she didn't even ask for one and would have been just as happy with anything I gave her. However I knew that she appreciated the look of them, and knowing that while she would be happy with something else I was not willing to settle based on any moral convictions I may have, if she likes something, even if she doesn't say she wants it but I know she will be happy with it then I am going to put the commitment and effort into buying one that I knew she would like, and the joy of seeing how much that it delighted her was what made it a worthy purchase....
Sure I could have saved a ton of money and bought a cheapo synthetic, and I know that she would have liked it just as much, but I personally see synthetics as being worn by people who want to put off an image of something they are not. Much like I see other "designer imposter" brands. I have more respect for someone who buys a nice ruby or some other gem or something original and authentic than a synthetic that is trying to give off the image of being a diamond...
Since I knew she didn't like the look of any of those stones as much as a plain clear diamond the choice was obvious....and if I knew she would be happy with it who am I to try and teach her the wrongdoings of the industry and spoil her fun.
Most any company you buy anything from has skeletons in their closet, they are all sold to us using brainwashing and manipulative tactics...heck it is called marketing. Generally when I see arguments like Mach's and ranging from certain product lines it is a clear sign that the person is not as morally convicted as they would like others to believe, rather they are just trying to justify their lack of spending on certain things by discrediting their usefullness for everyone not just themselves...plain and simple
This is a nice lengthy reply, but it is utterly off point. You failed to respond to nearly every important point I made, glossing over them and picking a few minor trifles with which to take issue.
I think the following sums up everything succinctly.
Instead of attempting to make valid responses to the points in my post, he attempts to paint me as someone who's cheap and is trying to force my "cheap" views on everyone else. That's laughable. Did I say that I have any inherent problem with leather? Didn't I follow my entire car example with something along the lines of, "But I wouldn't tell anyone else what to drive"? Did you even READ my post, or did you gloss over it looking for any points that prove your incorrect theories?
It's become obvious that he's nothing more than a material elitist, who puts importance on things of value for the sheer fact that they cost money. Instead of appreciating things for what they are, he appreciates them for what they cost.
Your true colors are showing. Walk away while some of your dignity is still intact.
Mach, if I were the first to call you cheap then I might take your response to heart but since it was already said in another thread by Werk then I can at least take comfort in the fact that I am not the only one coming to such conclusions.
The reason I neglected to respond to your comments was simply because it was more justification for your own ideology and priorities however the same lack of understanding of the interests of others was a prevalent theme. Sure I read your posts but they all sounded like the same ?I would buy this, this is the only way and thus everyone should listen to me? theme, re read your posts on the car thread, how you are constantly wrong and yet still bother to argue with those who know considerably more than you do and try to promote your ideals as correct, also re read your responses on the Sunglasses thread, in the end you even openly admit that you do not even consider such items as you do not have the financial means to afford them, if you cannot afford or would not even consider buying such an item why bother to comment on it in the first place? Did you add anything to that discussion? The person did not ask would you buy any of these or a cheap pair of $5 glasses yet you felt the need to input your 2c that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
Materialist elitist, hmm that is pretty funny, I guess you could say I am since I do happen to find value and can understand why some people like nice things which are also expensive, however I also enjoy things that are not expensive at all?if that is a material elitist then so be it, however I will never tell people what they should or shouldn?t buy as I know that people should be allowed to like and buy what they want, the information you provide isn?t groundbreaking, heck one article you quoted was from 82. I also found it funny how you attributed the success of diamonds strictly to marketing mind control and monopolistic practices yet you fail to mention that no one ever held a gun to people?s heads and made them buy anything, sure marketing helped but in the end people decided it was something they wanted plain and simple.
I'm sure that this has been brought up before, but if you (or your fiancee) really wants a diamond for whatever reason, just buy canadian.
-Chu
Baloney. How a tradition gets started is irrelevant. Whether it was started by one guy deciding to do something, or a marketing ploy of a corporation -- the tradition is part of our society now, plain and simple.
Not only will I not try to 'avoid' buying a DeBeers diamond, I made sure that when I bought my wife an engagement ring it was a DeBeers diamond because they have the highest quality diamonds in the world. In fact, they are starting to lasertag some of their diamonds to distinguish them from Canadian or Russian diamonds.
Funny you brought that up. Today in class, some girls were discussing engagement rings and decided that at least 2 months of the male's yearly gross should be allocated to the ring.
Hahahahhaa.
They haven't even met their future husbands, and they're already figuring out how to spend his money.
I pity the poor guy who ends up with these gold diggers.
Platinum would be a much better investment than some worthless carbon. Once diamond monopolies are broken up (such as the Debeers cartel) then the value of such rocks will fall.
And btw, everyone does know that Debeers cannot operate within the U.S. right? That is, as a company operating out of the U.S. since Cartels are Illegal. Seeing how people don't like other monopolies, why don't they have more problems with Debeers? Because of their marketing, that's it.
And btw, everyone does know that Debeers cannot operate within the U.S. right? That is, as a company operating out of the U.S. since Cartels are Illegal. Seeing how people don't like other monopolies, why don't they have more problems with Debeers? Because of their marketing, that's it.
diamonds aren't symbols of love
the commercials may try to show them as such but they're not
women know this too
diamonds are a symbol of STATUS, just like that cell phone was awhile ago, just like that car you drive, the clothes you wear
its a consumer world, capitalism has requirements which include precious gems as adornments but really, mean nothing else.
no woman is TRUELY foolish enough to think just because a guy gives her a diamond he gives her his heart. i doubt thats even what they want in the first place, the diamond is a placeholder, a snowglobe paperweight on the marriage contract. ultimately all it shows is 1) the guy has financial security to take care of her, and 2) he's committed enough to use a stone he paid two months salary for when (as in polynesian cultures) a flower over the right ear would have done the same thing.
if a diamond meant love why do poor ppl get married?
the commercials may try to show them as such but they're not
women know this too
diamonds are a symbol of STATUS, just like that cell phone was awhile ago, just like that car you drive, the clothes you wear
its a consumer world, capitalism has requirements which include precious gems as adornments but really, mean nothing else.
no woman is TRUELY foolish enough to think just because a guy gives her a diamond he gives her his heart. i doubt thats even what they want in the first place, the diamond is a placeholder, a snowglobe paperweight on the marriage contract. ultimately all it shows is 1) the guy has financial security to take care of her, and 2) he's committed enough to use a stone he paid two months salary for when (as in polynesian cultures) a flower over the right ear would have done the same thing.
if a diamond meant love why do poor ppl get married?
If you do have to buy a diamond or just want to, get a man made diamond. They shine much better and cost less. I think you can get them up to 2 carets now.
Or you could just go with Cubic Zirconia.
My fiance didn't mind all that much - heck, she ended up marrying me after all.
2 months salary? Ha - try 2 hours. Those are the type of girls you date, because it'll be hell if you end up with one of them for life.
My fiance didn't mind all that much - heck, she ended up marrying me after all.
2 months salary? Ha - try 2 hours. Those are the type of girls you date, because it'll be hell if you end up with one of them for life.
w00t. I have a 3 karat diamond on the way. yay. Hopefully a pair of 2 karat diamonds for my ears... if I can get the price I want.
I think you guys all went overboard in this thread.
I think you guys all went overboard in this thread.
You know what's funny is that you really can't tell the difference from a real and fake one from looking at it from a foot + away. I know someone that will sometimes wear a fake ring (costume jewelry, looks real) and you wouldn't know the difference. You'd think she's filthy rich and the ring costs thousands.
What I'm getting at is that people can still get the same "status, look at me I'm rich " effect with a fake just as easily.
What I'm getting at is that people can still get the same "status, look at me I'm rich " effect with a fake just as easily.
That isn't true at all. People can tell how you are dressed if you have the real thing or not. People doubt that I have real diamonds (I got them at age 17), but I know they are real and when the light hit the ice .... it twankle and glisten.
I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask again. Is it not true that a majority of the killing and maiming and murdering going on in those countries is a result of religion rather than diamonds? Diamonds are just a way to finance both sides of the coin, right? So if we're gonna stop buying diamonds because a company inadvertently takes advantage of a situation and people die as a result, why not also hold religious beliefs accountable? I think this entire thread has turned into a display of fanaticism, not far removed from that of the warring factions involved in the diamond trade. Having a little tirade about your personal beliefs and telling everybody else not to do something is called "fanaticism" and/or "brainwashing". People don't see things the way you do, get over it.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
OMG. Get over yourself moron and learn that girls are thinking human beings too. If all the girls you know think like that, you need to find yourself a new group of people to hang out with.
Diamonds are teh suck. I have a preference for other precious stones, but I don't find a ring necessary at all. Nice, shiny, and completely unneeded.
Spikesoldier
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2001
- 6,766
- 0
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter