Relative Contentment

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Instead of asking a question, I'll make an assertion.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Therefore, it is unfair to judge the contentment of others based upon what you see as comfortable.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

*is amused by the similarity in subject matter to previous, dead threads*

[quote name='Adahn']I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation. This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[/quote]
Fine.


[QUOTE]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. [b]It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[/b][/QUOTE]
I think the [i]starving[/i], [i]malnourished[/i], [i]sickly[/i], and [i]dying[/i] children in Third World Countries in East Africa would disagree with you when you say that sending humanitarian aid, food, medicine to them is something people shouldn't be doing.

So, we're actually sending over big screen HDTVs, Super Bowl tickets, cell phones, Ferraris and no food or medicinal items (food and medicine, by the way, to improve their quality of health, and health is not a "false need") whatsoever?

Your take on things is, again, completely asinine.


[QUOTE]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so...are you saying that Third World Countries are what we should look to for an ideal human situation? There's nothing in your post to suggest otherwise.


[QUOTE]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so by the USA and a few other superpowers sending humanitarian aid to poor and starving children in Third World Countries, humanity is worse-off? Is that what you're trying to say here?


[quote]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/QUOTE]
The more we produce, the more we have to give to others. America is one of the, if not the, most powerful and richest nations on the face of the planet. If we're the top dog, as it were, why shouldn't we help people out? Why should we feel guilty about being a powerhouse? Because we're so posh, we have the ability to help others. How is that a bad thing? How is our wealth and power a bad thing?

Come on, dude. Just stop trying.

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I think the [i]starving[/i], [i]malnourished[/i], [i]sickly[/i], and [i]dying[/i] children in Third World Countries in East Africa would disagree with you when you say that sending humanitarian aid, food, medicine to them is something people shouldn't be doing.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Please be so kind as to show me where I said that sending humanitarian aid to Third World Countries is a bad thing.[/color][/size][/font]

[Quote=Siren]
So, we're actually sending over big screen HDTVs, Super Bowl tickets, cell phones, Ferraris and no food or medicinal items (food and medicine, by the way, to improve their quality of health, and health is not a "false need") whatsoever?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Again, show me where I said that.[/color][/size][/font]

[Quote=Siren]
Your take on things is, again, completely asinine.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If I had said any of the things you've stated here, I'd have to agree with you.[/color][/size][/font]

[Quote=Siren]
Okay, so...are you saying that Third World Countries are what we should look to for an ideal human situation? There's nothing in your post to suggest otherwise.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]There's also nothing in my post that suggests that.[/color][/size][/font]

[Quote=Siren]
Okay, so by the USA and a few other superpowers sending humanitarian aid to poor and starving children in Third World Countries, humanity is worse-off? Is that what you're trying to say here?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]No, it's not.[/color][/size][/font]

[Quote=Siren]
The more we produce, the more we have to give to others. America is one of the, if not the, most powerful and richest nations on the face of the planet. If we're the top dog, as it were, why shouldn't we help people out? Why should we feel guilty about being a powerhouse? Because we're so posh, we have the ability to help others. How is that a bad thing? How is our wealth and power a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Because our level of comfortability requires us to consume more natural resources than we should. Would it not be better to desire and obtain less?[/color][/size][/font]

[Quote=Siren]
Come on, dude. Just stop trying[/Quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Try addressing any point of my post in the correct context and refute me there, and perhaps I will stop trying. I did purposely bait you into replying like this. You're so very predictable.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Adahn]Please be so kind as to show me where I said that sending humanitarian aid to Third World Countries is a bad thing.

Again, show me where I said that.

If I had said any of the things you've stated here, I'd have to agree with you.

There's also nothing in my post that suggests that.

No, it's not.[/quote]
In your first post, Adahn:

[quote name='Adahn]I assert that [b]if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply[/b]. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. [b]It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person[/b'].[/quote]
I've bolded the exact phrases there.

We often take good medical care and good food for granted in the USA. Connect the dots in your own post. Think about it. If we're providing food, medicine, and humanitarian aid (things that we don't realize just how great they are) to Third World Countries, we're [i]helping[/i] those people, [i]not[/i] hurting them.

Read between the lines in your own posts, man, and just admit that you've gotten called on your BS yet again, lol.

[QUOTE]Because our level of comfortability requires us to consume more natural resources than we should. Would it not be better to desire and obtain less?[/QUOTE]
Never in your post were you ever explicitly or implicitly talking about natural resources, Adahn. Don't try to pull that here. The entire focus of your post was on the state of "comfortability" in Third World Countries and how it's wrong to help them, because it will give them a "false" Hope. That's talking about humanitarian aid, though it seems you don't even realize that.

[quote]Try addressing any point of my post in the correct context and refute me there, and perhaps I will stop trying. I did purposely bait you into replying like this. You're so very predictable.[/QUOTE]
Okay...this "point" of yours has no point, and it's more or less a thinly-veiled insult, so it doesn't serve your argument any benefit whatsoever. I like how you tried to insult me, Adahn, but it's not working. And the fact of the matter is, I was addressing your points in the correct context and wrecking them, but you wouldn't care to admit that. You don't have a problem with me, Adahn; you have a problem with yourself.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]It is natural to seek ease. Why settle for less? To conserve resources. Fair enough.

We should all live on farms, and provide for ourselves. Lets go back to the 1700's and enjoy a full day of hard labour, knowing that we are satisfied and contented with this difficult way of life.

Resource management is the way to go, not deprivation.[/size]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]
We often take good medical care and good food for granted in the USA. Connect the dots in your own post. Think about it. If we're providing food, medicine, and humanitarian aid (things that we don't realize just how great they are) to Third World Countries, we're [i]helping[/i] those people, [i]not[/i] hurting them.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I agree that giving food and medical care to other countries is good, but if and only if we can continue to support them. If we give them something like that and withdraw support, we've done more harm than good.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Read between the lines in your own posts, man, and just admit that you've gotten called on your BS yet again, lol.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The only BS here involves you putting words into my mouth.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Never in your post were you ever explicitly or implicitly talking about natural resources, Adahn. Don't try to pull that here. The entire focus of your post was on the state of "comfortability" in Third World Countries and how it's wrong to help them, because it will give them a "false" Hope. That's talking about humanitarian aid, though it seems you don't even realize that.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Adahn]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less [b]resources[/b].[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Liar. Second of all, the state of Third World Countries was an example.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Okay...this "point" of yours has no point, and it's more or less a thinly-veiled insult, so it doesn't serve your argument any benefit whatsoever. I like how you tried to insult me, Adahn, but it's not working. And the fact of the matter is, I was addressing your points in the correct context and wrecking them, but you wouldn't care to admit that. You don't have a problem with me, Adahn; you have a problem with yourself.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][Quote=Adahn][/color][/size][/font]
[color=#0000ff][font=Courier New][size=2]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/size]

[size=2]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/QUOTE][/size][/font][/color]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I thought I had a point. If you would like me to clarify it more in some way, I'll try. I do think I've made myself clear already, though.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: To Baron[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If one is happy with what one has, how, may I ask, is that person deprived of anything? You are saying those people aren't happy based upon what you require in order to be happy.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]So, Adahn, you're saying that a third-world child who is deliriously happy that he has found a rat for dinner [i]is not deprived[/i]?[/size]

[Adahn]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1]So, Adahn, you're saying that a third-world child who is deliriously happy that he has found a rat for dinner [i]is not deprived[/i']?[/size][/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I was never talking about food or medicine. Those are necessities. I stated that in my original post.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Adahn][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is [b]necessary[/b] is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]A person can 'live' on rat-meat and dirty water. Therefore, they have the necessities to live.

Anyway, this feels like a carbon-copy lash out at consumerism. There is amazing waste occurring in the world. If everyone on Earth used as much oil as the average American, supplies would be gone within a decade. Americans constitute 5% of the population, and 25% of oil consumption. Entire countries agriculture can be aimed at sating McDonalds cows. 10 calories of South African wheat make 1 calorie of beef, and the wastage of energy in that cycle costs $2 billion a year. Consumerism can be a monster.

Which is why I said that management, not deprivation is the way to go. You think people can, and should give up their luxury, and get back to the bare necessities for survival. But why?[/size]

[Adahn]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']A person can 'live' on rat-meat and dirty water. Therefore, they have the necessities to live.[size=2][/quote][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=2][/size][/size]
[size=1][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If someone can survive on dirty water and rat meat, and be content with it, is there anything wrong with it? I don't know what rat meat tastes like, but maybe it tastes like chicken.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]
Anyway, this feels like a carbon-copy lash out at consumerism. There is amazing waste occurring in the world. If everyone on Earth used as much oil as the average American, supplies would be gone within a decade. Americans constitute 5% of the population, and 25% of oil consumption. Entire countries agriculture can be aimed at sating McDonalds cows. 10 calories of South African wheat make 1 calorie of beef, and the wastage of energy in that cycle costs $2 billion a year. Consumerism can be a monster.
[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, consumerism is a monster. I didn't know all that stuff, though. My idea is not even close to being applicable, so it's different from any classic argument.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]
Which is why I said that management, not deprivation is the way to go. You think people can, and should give up their luxury, and get back to the bare necessities for survival. But why?[/size][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't know whether people can do it, or should. I'm wondering if it would be best for us to exist that way, if it could be done.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Adahn]I agree that giving food and medical care to other countries is good, but if and only if we can continue to support them. If we give them something like that and withdraw support, we've done more harm than good.

The only BS here involves you putting words into my mouth.[/quote]You're bristling.

I fail to see how I'm putting words into your mouth, when it's rather clear the words in your mouth were BS to begin with, Adahn. You were saying that it's inappropriate to send humanitarian aid to Third World Countries because it gives them false Hope. We all know that's bullsh-t, and you did, too, and now you're trying to deny that's what you were saying. Why not just admit it and walk away?

Dragging this out isn't going to make you look any better to anyone here, because like I said in a previous thread of yours, around here, you're not viewed as some great thinker, or someone who's capable of successfully leading a discussion, because you don't have a strong enough grasp on things to begin with.

No offense, dude, but like I told Jordan, you can't back up your ego (and Jordan understood this, by the way). You're a poseur, a fake, a phony. You're just lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Listen to me, okay? You can't cut it, and until you realize that, you've always going to sound like a little child trying to use big words.

[QUOTE]Liar. Second of all, the state of Third World Countries was an example.[/QUOTE]Liar? You're bristling.

Third World Countries [i]have no resources[/i]. They're not content with having nothing. They're starving, Adahn, because they have virtually no grain, no fresh water, [i]nothing[/i]. They're not able to survive with what they have, because they don't have anything. Do you honestly believe they're enjoying living like that?

If we've got the power to give them a better life, why in the hell shouldn't we do that? Oh, because you have this asinine and Idealistic notion that scraping the dirt for food, suffering from malnutrition, disease, and dehydration, is somehow more noble than being able to provide a stable income, good healthcare, and still have enough left over from being responsible workers to have some fun?

You mentioned "resources" once in your entire post, and then try to spin it like your post was focused on resources the entire time? Your entire post was focused on luxuries (HDTV, Ferraris, Cell Phones, etc...) we take for granted, and that focus is not going to magically change by tacking one word to the end of it, Adahn. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory; don't pretend to be.

[QUOTE]I thought I had a point. If you would like me to clarify it more in some way, I'll try. I do think I've made myself clear already, though.[/QUOTE]If by "had a point," you mean that you never were trying to make that particular point to begin with, only trying to tack it on at the end and thinking it will change the entire meaning and point of your post, then, yes. Otherwise, I think you're trying to rationalize your way out of a snag that isn't looking favorable for you at all.


[quote]EDIT: To Baron

If one is happy with what one has, how, may I ask, is that person deprived of anything? You are saying those people aren't happy based upon what you require in order to be happy.[/QUOTE]Okay, Adahn, you head on over to Somalia and ask the stick-children, who can't even keep their heads vertical because they're so malnourished, if they're happy. Don't be stupid, Adahn; don't drag this one out like the others.

[Zeta]

[QUOTE]If someone can survive on dirty water and rat meat, and be content with it, is there anything wrong with it? I don't know what rat meat tastes like, but maybe it tastes like chicken.[/QUOTE]

I'm going out on a limb here. I really don't think they are content with it. If they are content with it, it is because they have to be. If they had a choices between rat meat and dirty water, and a piece of chicken and clean water, they would be content with the better of the two. I mean really, who wants to live on rat meat and dirty water? They want to live off a good food and water no matter if we help them get the supplies or not.

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]You're bristling.

I fail to see how I'm putting words into your mouth, when it's rather clear the words in your mouth were BS to begin with, Adahn. [b]You were saying that it's inappropriate to send humanitarian aid to Third World Countries because it gives them false Hope.[/b] We all know that's bullsh-t, and you did, too, and now you're trying to deny [b]that's what you were saying[/b]. Why not just admit it and walk away?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Adahn]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks [b]luxuries[/b] we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such [b]luxuries[/b] for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I specifically used the word luxuries, Siren. I didn't say humanitarian aid. I know this, and you know this. Why must you insist on attacking everything I say?[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Dragging this out isn't going to make you look any better to anyone here, because like I said in a previous thread of yours, around here, you're not viewed as some great thinker, or someone who's capable of successfully leading a discussion, because you don't have a strong enough grasp on things to begin with.

No offense, dude, but like I told Jordan, you can't back up your ego (and Jordan understood this, by the way). You're a poseur, a fake, a phony. You're just lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Listen to me, okay? You can't cut it, and until you realize that, [b]you've[/b] always going to sound like a little child trying to use big words.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're doing more harm to yourself than you are to me. You're so angry you used 'you've' instead of 'you're'. You're no longer 'not sugar-coating', you're insulting.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Liar? You're bristling.

Third World Countries [i]have no resources[/i]. They're not content with having nothing. They're starving, Adahn, because they have virtually no grain, no fresh water, [i]nothing[/i]. They're not able to survive with what they have, because they don't have anything. Do you honestly believe they're enjoying living like that?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]No, I don't think they enjoy living without necessities. Did I ever say that? Again, show me where I said it, Siren.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
If we've got the power to give them a better life, why in the hell shouldn't we do that? Oh, because you have this asinine and Idealistic notion that scraping the dirt for food, suffering from malnutrition, disease, and dehydration, is somehow more noble than being able to provide a stable income, good healthcare, and still have enough left over from being responsible workers to have some fun?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Giving people necessities is a good thing, Siren.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
[b]You mentioned "resources" once in your entire post[/b], and then try to spin it like your post was focused on resources the entire time? Your entire post was focused on luxuries (HDTV, Ferraris, Cell Phones, etc...) we take for granted, and that focus is not going to magically change by tacking one word to the end of it, Adahn. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory; don't pretend to be.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Siren]
[b]Never[/b] in your post were you ever [b]explicitly[/b] or [b]implicitly[/b] talking about [b]natural resources[/b], Adahn. Don't try to pull that here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Adahn]
[font=Courier New][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less [b]resources[/b].[/QUOTE][/color][/font]
[font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Just admit that you were wrong, and walk away.[/color][/size][/font]


[QUOTE=Siren]
If by "had a point," you mean that you never were trying to make that particular point to begin with, only trying to tack it on at the end and thinking it will change the entire meaning and point of your post, then, yes. Otherwise, I think you're trying to rationalize your way out of a snag that isn't looking favorable for you at all.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're absolutely right, Siren. It's a bad idea to make clarifications and provide an example before stating the point behind said clarifications and example. I hope I get as good an education as you some day.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Okay, Adahn, you head on over to Somalia and ask the stick-children, who can't even keep their heads vertical because they're so malnourished, if they're happy. Don't be stupid, Adahn; don't drag this one out like the others.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can't afford a plane ticket to Somalia.[/color][/size][/font]

[cinnamon]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]I have a feeling that human nature is to be greedy, and to take more than one needs. If we were all living on basic needs, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Just pointing that out.

However, if the worlds resources were shared out equally between all peoples, how would those with more handle it? Would they be content with less, and willing to give it all up? Would it be fair to take what they have earned from them? Not all people are money hoarding tyrants, you know. Would they be bitter, and try to take back what was originally theirs?

Also, how would those with less handle it? To be given more, would they be grateful, or wasteful? Would they dominate the previously rich part of society by being able to work harder, and with their newfound better conditions be 100 times more productive? Would they turn on their former suppressers, and beat them at their own game?

If this could be done by human means, the changes would have to be made extremely slowly- a peaceful revolution. Overall, it might be more satisfying for everyone's best intrests, but individuals will always be hungry for more- money, power, respect. It's a part of human nature, as I said before. But whether it can be overcome or not is a different story. Me being a christian, I belive we missed out on harmony a long time ago. To me, contentment is more than physical. But physically- I suppose we need nothing more than the bare necessities. Its just the self control that trips us up.

However, in this case, contentment all boils down to whether we have already tasted the chicken, or whether we've spent our lives eating nothing but rats.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']I specifically used the word luxuries, Siren. I didn't say humanitarian aid. I know this, and you know this. Why must you insist on attacking everything I say?[/quote]
Okay, then what did you mean by "luxuries?" Think about what [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luxuries][u]"luxuries"[/u][/url] means. It specifically refers to things that aren't needed, we agree on that much.

However, when you realize that we're not sending over HDTVs, Rolex watches, Ferraris and such (which are "false" needs, luxuries), your post just becomes tragically redundant, because it's not based on anything substantial. Really, your post just amounts to spam, because there's no real meat to it. There was never any point to this thread, no matter how much conjecturing, dodging, or rationalizing you try to do.

[QUOTE]You're doing more harm to yourself than you are to me. You're so angry you used 'you've' instead of 'you're'. You're no longer 'not sugar-coating', you're insulting.[/QUOTE]
I had my window open most of the day. Cold air affects my accuracy. Adahn, you want to say I'm insulting you, I realize, but you and I both know that what I said to you is absolutely true, and Jordan knows it, too. I'm not insulting you, so don't play the whiny victim here.

[QUOTE]No, I don't think they enjoy living without necessities. Did I ever say that? Again, show me where I said it, Siren.

Giving people necessities is a good thing, Siren.[/QUOTE]
What do you think the necessities are, by the way? Good, wholesome, and nutritious food. Rat meat and dirty water are not good, wholesome, or nutritious, and for someone to survive without starving, they [i]need[/i] something better than rat meat and dirty water. Good and nutritious food is a necessity for someone to survive. Rat meat and dirty water are not good nor nutritious.

We've all showed you where you've been saying that, Adahn, but I'll point it out yet again:

[quote name='Adahn']If someone can survive on dirty water and rat meat, and be content with it, is there anything wrong with it? I don't know what rat meat tastes like, but maybe it tastes like chicken.[/quote]
You're treating that situation like it's simply not a problem.

[QUOTE]Just admit that you were wrong, and walk away.

You're absolutely right, Siren. It's a bad idea to make clarifications and provide an example before stating the point behind said clarifications and example. I hope I get as good an education as you some day.[/QUOTE]
Tell you what, you prove that [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luxuries][u]"luxuries"[/u][/url] means the same thing as [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resources][u]"resources,"[/u][/url] and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, being that there is no mention [i]at all[/i] of "resources" in the entirety of your initial post, only getting tacked on at the end, you have absolutely no room to argue with me here.

You state exactly what your precise focus is at the very beginning of the post. If you don't, you're viewed as trying to pull a fast one on your reader, misleading them, and your paper gets thrown out. I don't agree with having to write single sentence thesis statements, but you cannot get away with not including a focused thesis paragraph in any paper, if you want to be taken seriously, and posts are no different.

[quote]I can't afford a plane ticket to Somalia.[/QUOTE]
Then watch the news, read the paper. Get [i]informed[/i] before saying anything.

[O-Ushi]

Not to mention that, while we're saying all this, the only reason we need to send food over to areas like West Africa is not because they don;t have any, but so the blinkin' country has some money. There's more than enough food in Africa so that everyone can live happily, but the problem is because of the Third World Debt they have to sell all of it to survive.

Also, Adahn, have you every actually seen a West African country, crippled by the Debt? Or the poorer areas of China? India maybe?

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I apologize for not doing this immediately after the first reply.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Instead of asking a question, I'll make an assertion.[font=Tahoma'][color=#000000][/quote][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Therefore, it is unfair to judge the contentment of others based upon what you see as comfortable.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks [b]luxuries[/b] we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such [b]luxuries[/b] for those people, unless one can provide a [b]steady supply[/b]. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This is what Siren managed to twist. I was talking about giving things to people that they don't need, and that they can't receive a steady supply of. I used Third World Countries as an example because they tend to lack the luxuries we possess. I said luxuries, Siren, I wasn't talking about humanitarian aid, and you know it. Do you honestly think that I would argue against that? Look beyond your own desire to prove how idiotic I am and you'll see that I said no such thing. What I did say was that one should not provide someone with a luxury unless one could continue to provide that luxury. Even if you did somehow see humanitarian aid as a luxury, it would still be ok by what I originally said so long as they could provide a steady supply.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Despite what you say, Siren, this follows the idea of my whole post. You disregarded this and what follows because of your deliberate misinterpretation of what I stated earlier.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'd like to thank cinnamon for seeing through Siren's attempt to undermine everything I've said and respond to the topic intelligently.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font]
[size=1][color=#006400]I have a feeling that human nature is to be greedy, and to take more than one needs. If we were all living on basic needs, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Just pointing that out.[/QUOTE][/color][/size]
[size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, if we had a lower level of comfortability, we certainly wouldn't have computers.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font]
[size=1][color=#006400]However, if the worlds resources were shared out equally between all peoples, how would those with more handle it? Would they be content with less, and willing to give it all up? Would it be fair to take what they have earned from them? Not all people are money hoarding tyrants, you know. Would they be bitter, and try to take back what was originally theirs?[/QUOTE][/color][/size]
[size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I would not suggest that everyone have an equal share (communism), just that each person's requirements to be comfortable be on a lower level. Our waste of resources is abominable.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font]
[size=1][color=#006400]Also, how would those with less handle it? To be given more, would they be grateful, or wasteful? Would they dominate the previously rich part of society by being able to work harder, and with their newfound better conditions be 100 times more productive? Would they turn on their former suppressers, and beat them at their own game?[/QUOTE][/color][/size]
[size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]One would never have to give up what one worked for to another person. If someone cannot support themselves, most people would have enough extra (because of lack of waste) to be charitable.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font]
[size=1][color=#006400]If this could be done by human means, the changes would have to be made extremely slowly- a peaceful revolution. Overall, it might be more satisfying for everyone's best intrests, but individuals will always be hungry for more- money, power, respect. It's a part of human nature, as I said before. But whether it can be overcome or not is a different story. Me being a christian, I belive we missed out on harmony a long time ago. To me, contentment is more than physical. But physically- I suppose we need nothing more than the bare necessities. Its just the self control that trips us up.[/QUOTE][/color][/size]
[size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can only hope that you're wrong. If we always want more and more, we [i]will[/i] relieve this world of all its resources. I did not say contentment was physical. I would call love and human contact necessities, also. There's nothing I would desire more than to be completely self-sufficient. If I could live with my family and provide for it well consuming less resources, I would do it. All I really want is to be happy.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font]
[size=1][color=#006400]However, in this case, contentment all boils down to whether we have already tasted the chicken, or whether we've spent our lives eating nothing but rats.[/QUOTE][/color][/size]
[size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think that if we understood what unnecessary desire gets us, we wouldn't want to be presented with something better. You don't have to eat rats. I'd be happy with a fertile plot of land and a forest to hunt and trap in. To me, everything is a means to an end. I'm here in college because I feel that I need lots of money to live comfortably and provide for those I love. If I could leave college and go make a living for myself right now, and make my girl happy, I would do it in a heartbeat. If only we could be comfortable living that way, it would be like heaven.[/color][/size][/font]

[conpiracymonki]

[size=1]OK, all this arguing is confusing me, so I'm just going to ask a question.

Do you mean like how some people begin to wake up to a cup of coffee, and then suddenly they can't not have their coffee?

I don't know if that makes any sense to any of you all but bleh.[/size]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']This is what Siren managed to twist. I was talking about giving things to people that they don't need, and that they can't receive a steady supply of. I used Third World Countries as an example because they tend to lack the luxuries we possess. I said luxuries, Siren, I wasn't talking about humanitarian aid, and you know it. Do you honestly think that I would argue against that? Look beyond your own desire to prove how idiotic I am and you'll see that I said no such thing. What I did say was that one should not provide someone with a luxury unless one could continue to provide that luxury. Even if you did somehow see humanitarian aid as a luxury, it would still be ok by what I originally said so long as they could provide a steady supply.[/quote]
Then, Adahn, you show me where we're sending over HDTVs, Rolex watches (luxuries that are unnecessary at this point in time), and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, there was never any reason for you to talk about sending luxuries over, because we're not doing it to begin with.

If you're unable to provide any evidence that we're giving them a Gamecube instead of fresh, clean water, or monetary funds so they can improve their living spaces, then I think you need to realize that your post amounts to spam, because...you're essentially complaining about something that doesn't even exist to begin with.

[u]Also, luxuries are things you don't need. Resources are things you do.[/u]


[QUOTE]Despite what you say, Siren, this follows the idea of my whole post. You disregarded this and what follows because of your deliberate misinterpretation of what I stated earlier.[/QUOTE]
Let's look at it.

[quote name='Adahn']Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/quote]
You're not dealing in any concrete examples, firstly. You use this vague idea of "[b]relatively[/b] low requirement" but then refuse to define anything regarding specifics. Why would you refuse to define what is necessary?

I think you refuse because there are very real required needs in the world today, regardless of where you go (contrary to what you've been trying to say). There is in fact a worldly standard that most nations try to go by. Human rights violations, starvation, malnutrition, disease, etc, are things that most nations try to remedy in the best way that they can.

Obviously, some countries aren't going to do anything, like the former Taliban regime, but there are many people in the world who make it their life-goals to help improve the lives of people living in impoverished lands, because somebody starving isn't good no matter where you are.

Answer me this, do you believe cars are a False Need or a True Need? This relates to your "relatively low requirement" line.




[QUOTE]I'd like to thank cinnamon for seeing through Siren's attempt to undermine everything I've said and respond to the topic intelligently.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see you establish a concrete and clear correlative link between "luxuries" and "resources," because that portion of your reply was conspicuously absent.




[quote]Yes, if we had a lower level of comfortability, we certainly wouldn't have computers.




I would not suggest that everyone have an equal share (communism), just that each person's requirements to be comfortable be on a lower level. Our waste of resources is abominable.




One would never have to give up what one worked for to another person. If someone cannot support themselves, most people would have enough extra (because of lack of waste) to be charitable.




I can only hope that you're wrong. If we always want more and more, we will relieve this world of all its resources. I did not say contentment was physical. I would call love and human contact necessities, also. There's nothing I would desire more than to be completely self-sufficient. If I could live with my family and provide for it well consuming less resources, I would do it. All I really want is to be happy.




I think that if we understood what unnecessary desire gets us, we wouldn't want to be presented with something better. You don't have to eat rats. I'd be happy with a fertile plot of land and a forest to hunt and trap in. To me, everything is a means to an end. I'm here in college because I feel that I need lots of money to live comfortably and provide for those I love. If I could leave college and go make a living for myself right now, and make my girl happy, I would do it in a heartbeat. If only we could be comfortable living that way, it would be like heaven.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so...are you saying that my 7-year-old cousin, Kayla, getting so excited about Christmas because it means she gets to see her family, exchange presents, and Santa comes, and her face lights up around this time because just the very idea of Christmas...is a bad thing? Yes, toys are useless pieces of plastic, but you should see how bubbly she gets when she's playing with those useless pieces of plastic.

Hell, because those useless pieces of plastic make her so happy and excited, I think that'd prove they're not quite so useless after all. Kayla's a happy girl all year round, but Xmas just boosts her up like nothing else.

Hell, you should see how happy I get when I'm enjoying my presents.

Are you saying that getting happy from getting Metroid Prime 2: Echoes for Xmas is something people should be ashamed of?

I seriously think you're just vainly trying to take a moralistic "high-road" here by condemning Capitalism, lol. I think Baron's comment is quite true. This entire thread is just your carbon-copy lash-out at consumerism.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Siren']Then, Adahn, you show me where we're sending over HDTVs, Rolex watches (luxuries that are unnecessary at this point in time), and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, there was never any reason for you to talk about sending luxuries over, because we're not doing it to begin with.[/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]It was a hypothetical example, Siren. I won't pretend I know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society. I could have just as easily said something about giving a native tribe a box of crispy creme donuts. If they are human, they will want more crispy cremes, and they won't be able to have them.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
If you're unable to provide any evidence that we're giving them a Gamecube instead of fresh, clean water, or monetary funds so they can improve their living spaces, then I think you need to realize that your post amounts to spam, because...you're essentially complaining about something that doesn't even exist to begin with.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It's called an abstract concept, Siren. There are many things that don't exist that can be discussed. I'm not complaining so much as presenting an idea as a topic for discussion.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
You're not dealing in any concrete examples, firstly. You use this vague idea of "[b]relatively[/b] low requirement" but then refuse to define anything regarding specifics. Why would you refuse to define what is necessary?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Fine, I'll name off some necessary things if it will make you happy. Food, water, medicine, baths, free time, love, friends, heat, fire, and iodized salt. There are lots and lots of necessary things, and I don't want to name them all.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I think you refuse because there are very real required needs in the world today, regardless of where you go (contrary to what you've been trying to say). There is in fact a worldly standard that most nations try to go by. Human rights violations, starvation, malnutrition, disease, etc, are things that most nations try to remedy in the best way that they can.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I never set up those places as good places in terms of meeting needs. I merely used them as an example of places with a much lower level of comfortability. Hey, that ties in with everything I said, doesn't it?[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Obviously, some countries aren't going to do anything, like the former Taliban regime, but there are many people in the world who make it their life-goals to help improve the lives of people living in impoverished lands, because somebody starving isn't good no matter where you are.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Again, that's a good thing. It's not good, however, to provide people with something very desirable, and not continue to fulfill that desire.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Answer me this, do you believe cars are a False Need or a True Need? This relates to your "relatively low requirement" line.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]With how our world is set up today, cars are a need for many people.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I'd like to see you establish a concrete and clear correlative link between "luxuries" and "resources," because that portion of your reply was conspicuously absent.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm not exactly sure what you're asking about here, but I'll try. Excessive luxury is unnecessary and consumes resources.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Okay, so...are you saying that my 7-year-old cousin, Kayla, getting so excited about Christmas because it means she gets to see her family, exchange presents, and Santa comes, and her face lights up around this time because just the very idea of Christmas...is a bad thing? Yes, toys are useless pieces of plastic, but you should see how bubbly she gets when she's playing with those useless pieces of plastic.

Hell, because those useless pieces of plastic make her so happy and excited, I think that'd prove they're not quite so useless after all. Kayla's a happy girl all year round, but Xmas just boosts her up like nothing else.

Hell, you should see how happy I get when I'm enjoying my presents.

Are you saying that getting happy from getting Metroid Prime 2: Echoes for Xmas is something people should be ashamed of?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If there weren't pieces of plastic, would she not be just as excited about a hand-carved toy made by her mother and/or father? Would you not appreciate something given in love at the same cost just as much as Metroid Prime 2?[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I seriously think you're just vainly trying to take a moralistic "high-road" here by condemning Capitalism, lol. I think Baron's comment is quite true. This entire thread is just your carbon-copy lash-out at consumerism.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can't attack capitalism, it's necessary for today's society. I can argue, however, that in terms of an ideal, it raises our level of comfortability to the point where excess resources are required to keep us in a good mood, and that it would be better to be comfortable with less material possessions.[/color][/size][/font]

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Instead of asking a question, I'll make an assertion.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Therefore, it is unfair to judge the contentment of others based upon what you see as comfortable.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

Yeah, this makes sense. We ought to learn to be content more with the necessities, and not think we NEED any other stuff to be happy.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Adahn]It was a hypothetical example, Siren. [b]I won't pretend I know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society.[/b] I could have just as easily said something about giving a native tribe a box of crispy creme donuts. If they are human, they will want more crispy cremes, and they won't be able to have them.

It's called an abstract concept, Siren. There are many things that don't exist that can be discussed. I'm not complaining so much as presenting an idea as a topic for discussion.[/quote]
I've bolded an important sentence here. If you don't know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society, then you shouldn't be trying to lead a discussion, or to start threads and get annoyed when people start countering you. Furthermore, you [i]have[/i] been pretending to know enough about things to where you can start spouting off nonsense. Nearly every single thread of yours is precisely that.

Not abstract concept...useless concept, because it has absolutely no real-world application or basis in society. Your "concepts" are really no different than a n00b posting to wonder if his hand is really his hand (Descartes). It's just a waste of everyone's time, because it's like asking "What if" about JarJar Binks in Episode I. If there's no substance at all to what you're trying to talk about, and you're just coming off rambly as hell, with no real, applicable point...why bother posting?

[QUOTE]Fine, I'll name off some necessary things if it will make you happy. Food, water, medicine, baths, free time, love, friends, heat, fire, and iodized salt. There are lots and lots of necessary things, and I don't want to name them all.

I never set up those places as good places in terms of meeting needs. [b]I merely used them as an example of places with a much lower level of comfortability[/b]. Hey, that ties in with everything I said, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
Again, I've bolded a sentence that needs examination. You used Third World Countries as an example of places with a much lower level of comfortability, but you fail to realize [i]that they're not comfortable[/i]. They're dying. That's not having a [i]low[/i] level of comfort; that's having [i]no[/i] comfort at all.

Also, Third World Countries possess nearly none of the necessary things you listed above, keep in mind, and it just further re-enforces the idea that these people are not living comfortably, and should not be looked to as the Ideal human situation.

[QUOTE]Again, that's a good thing. It's not good, however, to provide people with something very desirable, and not continue to fulfill that desire.[/QUOTE]
And you'll find that we're not providing them with any unnecessary luxuries, and we're not pulling out the aid. Your statements are just utterly redundant at this point, because there is no real reason to be saying any of it, because the situation you're criticizing doesn't even exist.

[QUOTE]With how our world is set up today, cars are a need for many people.[/QUOTE]
So, then, cars are necessary. They're not a False Need; they're not a luxury. They're necessity, and this means our automobile dependency doesn't indict us on your...Evils of Luxury Item Usage scale.

[QUOTE]I'm not exactly sure what you're asking about here, but I'll try. Excessive luxury is unnecessary and consumes resources.[/QUOTE]
Definitions, Adah, definitions. There's a reason I linked to the definitions in the actual words. You want me to treat your post as being about resources the entire time, you prove to me, through the definitions I've linked to, that "luxuries" means the same thing as "resources."

[QUOTE]If there weren't pieces of plastic, would she not be just as excited about a hand-carved toy made by her mother and/or father? Would you not appreciate something given in love at the same cost just as much as Metroid Prime 2?[/QUOTE]
I certainly would appreciate it just as much, if not more, but instead of answering my initial question with a question, how about answering my initial question there? After all, you're no Socrates.

Are you saying that getting happy from getting Metroid Prime 2: Echoes or a toy you really wanted for Xmas is something people should be ashamed of?

[quote]I can't attack capitalism, it's necessary for today's society. I can argue, however, that in terms of an ideal, it raises our level of comfortability to the point where excess resources are required to keep us in a good mood, and that it would be better to be comfortable with less material possessions.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that a Nintendo Gamecube, HDTV, or a $4,000 coaster is making people more comfortable. They're having fun with them, and getting enjoyment out of them, surely, but that's not comfort; that's fun.

It almost seems like you're equating everything with providing comfort, when in reality, most of the "luxuries" we've talked about here don't add to the comfort level at all. They merely supplement people's enjoyment of their lives. There is a difference between enjoyment and comfort, especially in the sense of "comfort" that you're talking about.

You wear a warm and soft sweater because it's comfortable because it makes you feel better physically.

You buy a Nintendo Gamecube and a copy of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes because it makes you feel better mentally.

I'll put it really simply for you. Just because someone enjoys something doesn't make it bad. You seem to be arguing here that we can only be truly happy with less? Maybe it's the headache right now, but that seems to be what you're saying...that the world and humanity would be better off with less (Rousseau was not all there, remember).

[cinnamon]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]Luxuries are things that people have for comfort and enjoyment, but are not indispensable. Resources are assets available to all- a collection of things that can be drawn on when needed. They're not quite the same sort of thing. The opposite of luxuries is necessities, and the opposite of resources is... well, it doesn't really have one.

I suppose I was thinking about communism in my last post, it is, yet another idea that people didn't live up to.

[QUOTE]You don't have to eat rats. I'd be happy with a fertile plot of land and a forest to hunt and trap in. To me, everything is a means to an end. I'm here in college because I feel that I need lots of money to live comfortably and provide for those I love.[/QUOTE]

Well, try having no other food. You might have to make a compromise. Rat's tails, perhaps?
Anyway, the whole rats and chicken thing is basically saying that people have different requirements for contentment. Because everyone is content with different things means that it is practically impossible to let everyone be content! Especially those in politics ;)

Everyone has different loves and hates. Some people are very irrational about what they hate. Some people are very indecisive about what they love. In relation to other people we can probably never agree with everyone unless there's one person with very strong mind control powers.

Take the recent American elections for example. America as a whole couldn't agree with who should be in power. Therefore, there are elections. Some support the war on Iraq, and some oppose it. Some agree with Bush's ideals, and some agree with Kerry's. But don't let this turn into another USA political debate- theres been enough of those already.

Surely you must have some idea that someone else doesn't agree with. Wait a second, how about the one you're arguing for now. Are you content with the responses you've been getting? Are you content with how others try and state their views against yours? (No,I'm not slagging people here, I'm just using this as an example. I love all you guys :D)

It's just one of those things.While one person is totally content- like you in your nice little log cabin in the middle of the forest- what if someone wanted you to let them have the land you're living on, because it's the sacred forest of their ancestors? While your neighbours have a fancy new barbecue, you sit there toasting rabbits over a smoky fire that makes your eyes water. What if the neighbours had to live like that too? Would they survive, or starve, because they don't know how to trap rabbits?

Because of the resources available to the particular, it will determine what they will have, and want. It's really the spread of resources that causes poverty. Remember, money itself is a resource. Because people generally want to have more over less, they will always want more. Consumerism is the result of this- peoples differing levels of comfort, with no regard for others.

Youre just the wierd one, Adahn. A very good point, but a bad idea.

It happens.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]