veggymeggy Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 for instance - i have two bass guitars (one with frets, one without), a big amp (i used to do gigs), a drum kit (im just starting to learn), decent hifi system (i love music), largish tv (we love film, and it was bought from a second hand shop!), $1800 worth of gym equipment (used 5times a week), playstation (would have gone crazy without it when kathryn was doing her final disertation this year!) and stuff like that.i think that there is a difference between buying stuff that you really dont need, and stuff that can positively enhance your life if you get it ( ie hobby relating things like music and lifting). its quite a fine line between the two, but a $500 watch is IMO on the wrong side of that line. jonathan Question. You love movies and music, and if you have possessions that demonstrate that. I love jewelry and handbags and shoes, and I have possessions that demonstrate that. Are these things really different? I am ambiguous towards tv and rarely watch it, and generally consider anything more than free to be absurd for a tv because I think it's an unncessary expense. Or a play station - I'm not into video games and I think play stations a silly purchase. Those things will just need to be replaced as new technology comes out every year. Few hundred dollars for a new purse though, especially one from which I'll get years of use? Chump change. Of course I love a good deal, and I'll snag a second hand purse or discounted one any day as long as the quality is still good - but I have no qualms about dropping cash on a new one either. Seems to me this is but different sides of the same coin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 with most of the things that i have there is absolutely no parrellel. for instance my guitars cost $350 for the fretted one (it is the best i have ever played for under $600 - a real one off beauty) and $700 for the fretless one (again beautiful action on it). cheaper basses simply are not playable - ask any musician. the drum kit is the same - its $1500 worth of kit i got for $600 - you cannot get a cheaper electronic kit. without wishing to sound self rightious, being able to play, and enduring to improve oneself and learn new musical instruments is an art, and a very worthy venture. you cannot draw a parrellel with hangbags! where is the intellectual value in that? regarding films and video games; films are brilliant. they are an art form, but also an escape. i watch genuinly brilliant films to be intellectually engaged, i watch shitty action films for silly excitement.video games are i suppose my vice. i have 3 games in total. but whilst kathryn was doing 12hours a day on her final dissertation, it kept me out of her hair, plus its about the one shared thing that me and my brother do except for weightlifting. in my opinion, its silly spending lots of money on handbags, shoes and jewelry (though the engagement ring i got kathryn wasnt cheap, it is a one off, and exactly perfect) is frivilous, and somewhat pointless. at the end of the day, you may look good, but whats the point in having 20pairs of shoes if you are penniless? jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Playstation does its job which is that it allows you to play video games. A watch does its job which is it tells you the time. Buying a gold playstation for $1000 would be just as silly to me as buying a gold watch for $500. The additional price is what's confusing to me. I wouldn't resent someone for having a gold playstation or a gold watch, I just think it's humourous / confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 OK, is this turning into a money management thread or are you saying that you do define a person by the watch they are wearing ? Because if you can judge a person solely by the watch they are wearing, it doesn't matter if you wouldn't buy the watch and condemn those that do -- the silly watch commercial is right -- you do define a person by the watch they are wearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Playstation does its job which is that it allows you to play video games. A watch does its job which is it tells you the time. Buying a gold playstation for $1000 would be just as silly to me as buying a gold watch for $500. The additional price is what's confusing to me. I wouldn't resent someone for having a gold playstation or a gold watch, I just think it's humourous / confusing.Exactly!!!A wtch made in vietnam at the same factory that does basically the same wath for another company for 1/10 of the prize, the only thing that's going to happen is that the rich get filthy rich and the poor get marginally richer. Then we complain about fairness!? They're not fooling me .Rolex is simply branding out their competition. On the other hand your responsibility towards other is to feel as good as you can so that you by that can treat others well. If some thing is going to get you there I won't stand in your way . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesty leroux Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I don't even have a watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veggymeggy Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 with most of the things that i have there is absolutely no parrellel. for instance my guitars cost $350 for the fretted one (it is the best i have ever played for under $600 - a real one off beauty) and $700 for the fretless one (again beautiful action on it). cheaper basses simply are not playable - ask any musician. the drum kit is the same - its $1500 worth of kit i got for $600 - you cannot get a cheaper electronic kit. without wishing to sound self rightious, being able to play, and enduring to improve oneself and learn new musical instruments is an art, and a very worthy venture. you cannot draw a parrellel with hangbags! where is the intellectual value in that? regarding films and video games; films are brilliant. they are an art form, but also an escape. i watch genuinly brilliant films to be intellectually engaged, i watch shitty action films for silly excitement.video games are i suppose my vice. i have 3 games in total. but whilst kathryn was doing 12hours a day on her final dissertation, it kept me out of her hair, plus its about the one shared thing that me and my brother do except for weightlifting. in my opinion, its silly spending lots of money on handbags, shoes and jewelry (though the engagement ring i got kathryn wasnt cheap, it is a one off, and exactly perfect) is frivilous, and somewhat pointless. at the end of the day, you may look good, but whats the point in having 20pairs of shoes if you are penniless? jonathan My point though, is perspective. Spending money on handbags, watches, jewelry, etc seems frivolous and pointless to you, but I quite enjoy it. They may not be intellectually stimulating, but neither are 'shitty action films'. I'm paying many thousands a year to be intellectually stimulated by the university, so I don't feel I'm depriving myself in that department by spending the rest of my money elsewhere So, while you perceive my purchases, or anyone else's of this nature, to be silly, unnecessary, what have you - I still feel the same way about having an expensive entertainment/media set up. I agree with you on the musical instruments, those are the sort of thing in which unparalleled quality is a necessity. But being better able to see the movie you rented? Or, as you admit, your vice being video games? Meh. Pointless to me. I'd rather read a book. But, it doesn't bother me in the least if you spend your money, regardless of the amount, on such things; I just personally choose not to. I'll stick to my girly things Heh - and what's funny is, though I have a watch, I don't even wear it. I wear a bracelet from Tiffany's and use my cell phone for the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 to be fair though, i watch 1 or 2 shitty action films a month, if that. the expensive hifi setup is actually quite vital for my music playing. i taught myself to play bass, and have been playing for over 4years. i taught myself by listening to songs, picking out the bassline and teaching myself to play it. the better i got, the more intricate the bassline i learnt. i can now work out and play just about anything. but unless i had a decent hifi, the music quality would not be sufficiently good to be able to adequately distinguish between notes.a watch tells the time. the quality of that service is not variable. an amplifier becomes significantly better the more that you spend. mine cost $400 new (which is not at all much - the equivelent of spending $150 on a watch in terms of quality) and i have had it 4years with perfect sound. the point that i am making is that for some items, quality affects the service it gives, or simply that the item cannot be purchased any more cheaply (ps2 for instance).buying a $200 dollar handbag is pointless as you could get one (probably made by the same sweatshop) with 95% of the quality, minus the label, for a 10th the price. also, excusing stuff that you buy as 'girly things' is kind of discriminatory. it implies that if as a girl you do not subscribe to such a value system, that you are not 'girly'. i guess that me missus is buggered then jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veggymeggy Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 also, excusing stuff that you buy as 'girly things' is kind of discriminatory. it implies that if as a girl you do not subscribe to such a value system, that you are not 'girly'. i guess that me missus is buggered then jonathan I was referring to the fact that the majority of men do not carry handbags actually, and that the majority of women do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 the point that i am making is that for some items, quality affects the service it gives, or simply that the item cannot be purchased any more cheaply (ps2 for instance).buying a $200 dollar handbag is pointless as you could get one (probably made by the same sweatshop) with 95% of the quality, minus the label, for a 10th the price. But, this is an "apples to oranges" comparison. One is meant to have a specific function and does not have options for varying prices based on appearance, the other is meant to be an accessory that's based on one's personal preferences. As I get dragged shopping more than I like, I know that when my wife finds something she likes she looks for the cheapest option, but if she can't find a low-cost item and it's something she really wants she will pay more for it (even if the cost does not affect the functionality.) A PS2 is a PS2, but what if one came in, say, camouflage color for $50 more and you were hopelessly addicted to color-coordingating your living room to a jungle theme and there was no other option at a lesser cost? You'd likely but the camo-colored one even though it was a bit more because, as it goes, we're only human and we don't simply buy everything based solely off functionality. If we did, we'd all be living very different lives, as all that we studied or performed would be based of functional aspects to only improve our lives. I always felt that what one does with their money is their own business, so long as the money isn't being spent on objectionable products/services/investments that are hurting people, animals or the envrionment. Even if the spending is on something objectionable, it is STILL someone's own business, but I would feel compelled to speak up about my opinion on it. I feel that if someone is vegan and socially responsible, if they want to indulge and get themselves a few higher-end items then what purpose does it serve to look down upon them? I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than causing alienation or hard feelings over something that only affects the person who made the purchase. Once we start getting on people about their purchasing habits (providing they're within reason and morally/ethically responsible) we overstep our bounds. It's like saying "Why are you eating Boca burgers when you could make your own for half the cost?", or "Why did you buy that bottled water to take to the gym instead of just filling your bottle up at home for free?" Where does the line get drawn once we start deciding what's right or wrong for someone else, primarily since we base our opinions off our own beliefs first and usually override the big picture to consider that not everyone else is the same? Just something to ponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 If someone is sitting on your front doorstep starving to death and you buy a super expensive (vegan) pizza because (in this other reality) it gives you more status, then only eat 1/10th of it and just throw the rest away, instead of giving it to the person on your front door then you're an asshole. The watch is the same to me. This isn't to say that you have to be totally selfless. But a 500 dollar watch crosses the line. As far as arguing that a 500 dollar watch can have some point other than being a status symbol, whatever. And I haven't said anything that others haven't more or less said, I just used less pc language. And I understand that more women than men prefer to buy useless things. Blood diamonds, etc. I don't think that makes it OK cus it's "just how women are". Incidentally I never even look at a person's wrist and couldn't tell a $50 watch from a rolex. Also I try to avoid making any assumptions about people based on first impressions. I've been unfairly judged a lot and hate to do the same to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 If someone is sitting on your front doorstep starving to death and you buy a super expensive (vegan) pizza because (in this other reality) it gives you more status, then only eat 1/10th of it and just throw the rest away, instead of giving it to the person on your front door then you're an asshole. I'd agree, it is stupid to waste and the scenario paints the portrait of a hypothetical asshole, but we're comparing two totally different scenarios here in a pricey personal item vs. being next to a starving person and denying them your leftovers because you want to be a jerk. Two totally different things, unable to be compared in any way whatsoever. Nobody is buying a $500 watch then tossing it away while a man who will die if he doesn't know what time it is waits nearby. The watch is the same to me. I understand you've got an aversion toward anything that's not the bare minimum necessary, but you have to ask yourself, is that the only way that everyone should view it? Perhaps we should only wear fair-trade reinforced ripstop organic cotton or hemp cargo pants in natural cotton color because a) they're functional with extra pockets, b) the natural fiber color means there's no dyes in the item that could be harmful, and the organics remove the harmful pesticieds from the process, c) the ripstops and reinforcements mean less worry about pants tearing and having to buy new pants, meaning you can get more wear out of them, and d) the factor is that you won't be contributing to sweatshop labor. Even if you bought other pants, they wouldn't be as functional as these and you might have to buy pants more often, so we could find holes in what you have now and declare some things "wasteful" if we really sought to look for a reason. See where I'm coming from? It's a fine line to say that one thing is a waste, but yet none of us are perfect in what we buy, and we could ALL do better, you and I included. Again, we're only human and emotion-driven, as can easily be seen by the various responses in this argument because we're not all approaching this from a purely functional standpoint. This isn't to say that you have to be totally selfless. But a 500 dollar watch crosses the line. But, it's only the line YOU have drawn, and I know a lot of hard-working, selflessly giving people who don't have anything fancy who couldn't care less if I were to walk around in a $3000 Armani suit. They don't care simply because there are better ways to judge people - by giving a crap about a $500 watch and basing an opinion on the wearer based solely on value you're just as guilty as someone who admires it for how expensive it is. The best solution to tackling the situation is to live and let live with things that don't affect anyone but the purchaser. As a grown-up punk rock mentality kid, I've learned that the battles I pick and choose need to be done carefully, and I'd rather know more about someone before instantly dismissing them based on something as stuipd as an aversion to their possessions. Shit, being judged on my appearance pissed me off to no end, so why would I inflict this same mentality on someone else and be completely hypocritical? As far as arguing that a 500 dollar watch can have some point other than being a status symbol, whatever. I don't agree with this. I've heard a few things here of people that seemed to have some pretty nice watches that have a bit more functionality than you can get in a $20 model. You simply can't expect the same bells and whistles for one low price. And I understand that more women than men prefer to buy useless things. Blood diamonds, etc. I don't think that makes it OK cus it's "just how women are". I find that just as many men I come into contact with have the same fondness for expensive things - they just prefer to get them in the forms of cars, stereos, video gaming systems and things because it seems more justifiable than a handbag or earrings. Maybe not where you are, but Milwaukee is full of both genders yearning to wow each other with material goods. It's a cop-out to make it sound like this is primarily one-sided in favor of one gender over another just because it is stereotyped in that manner. Incidentally I never even look at a person's wrist and couldn't tell a $50 watch from a rolex. Also I try to avoid making any assumptions about people based on first impressions. I've been unfairly judged a lot and hate to do the same to others. So, what if you met someone you thought was really cool, got to know them, and then found out that they had on a $500 watch? Would that blow a relationship with someone? I mean, you've posted that anyone who has such a thing is an asshole and has "crossed the line", so obviously you'd never want to speak to this person again after discovering this fact about their watch. I hate to say it, J, but this last part is a bizarre contradiction to everything else you've said above, and I don't really know which way I'd believe you'd tend to lean in this case because I've heard two different stories. Maybe you don't even know, but I do urge you as someone who has felt judged to not be a judge yourself because for those of us who have been on the receiving end, we know how much it sucks to be there. Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veggymeggy Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 You make excellent and eloquent points Ryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 One of the teachers at my school said "nice watch" to me today. Bizarre. Also, t610 is nice. I want to upgrade though. I've had mine like 2 years or something.i got one a few years ago then upgraded to a k700i, now i've got the w900i for video conferencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert Posted December 11, 2005 Author Share Posted December 11, 2005 I shave my arms every other day but if I go for a couple of days without shaving my arms, the watch band pulls on the little hairs on my wrist. So I just stopped wearing a watch. I joined the rest of civilization in June and got a cell phone, now I just use that to tell the time. But I still shave my arms at least 4 days a week. -Thin Thin Smooth Him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesty leroux Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 I shave my arms every other day but if I go for a couple of days without shaving my arms, the watch band pulls on the little hairs on my wrist. So I just stopped wearing a watch. I joined the rest of civilization in June and got a cell phone, now I just use that to tell the time. But I still shave my arms at least 4 days a week. -Thin Thin Smooth Him Seeing as neither of us wears watches which of our material possesions best define us.... hmmm.... i do have a really awesome pair of sockshttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d169/gimp6336/mysocks1small.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 VeganEssentials' avatar kicks some serious BEE HIND Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormicaLinoleum Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Yeah, I don't wear a watch, either. I used to, but the battery ran out and I never replaced it (this is a pattern for me). I use my cell phone to tell the time as well. I wouldn't mind wearing a watch. It's just my laziness that keeps me from having one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljk11 Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I shave my arms every other day but if I go for a couple of days without shaving my arms, the watch band pulls on the little hairs on my wrist. So I just stopped wearing a watch. I joined the rest of civilization in June and got a cell phone, now I just use that to tell the time. But I still shave my arms at least 4 days a week. -Thin Thin Smooth Him SO materialistic...you own a razor? That's it. You crossed the line. And with quads like yours, you should not wear pants -- even in public! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I shave my arms every other day but if I go for a couple of days without shaving my arms, the watch band pulls on the little hairs on my wrist. So I just stopped wearing a watch. I joined the rest of civilization in June and got a cell phone, now I just use that to tell the time. But I still shave my arms at least 4 days a week. -Thin Thin Smooth Him Seeing as neither of us wears watches which of our material possesions best define us.... hmmm.... i do have a really awesome pair of sockshttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d169/gimp6336/mysocks1small.jpg nice socks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now