User Controls
I got mask shamed twice today
-
2020-07-23 at 2:49 PM UTCBoth of you are attacking straw men. It's not THAT you enjoy getting stuff by spending but that you spend inefficiently.
As an example: you are a regular coffee drinker, that means it would actually make sense for you to spend like 30 bucks on an Aeropress and learn how to make it yourself and spend maybe $50/mo on ingredients tops, plus it would probably be tastier and you would learn a skill.
The only difference being that you don't get to go to Starcucks and finance their "atmo". -
2020-07-23 at 2:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Both of you are attacking straw men. It's not THAT you enjoy getting stuff by spending but that you spend inefficiently.
As an example: you are a regular coffee drinker, that means it would actually make sense for you to spend like 30 bucks on an Aeropress and learn how to make it yourself and spend maybe $50/mo on ingredients tops, plus it would probably be tastier and you would learn a skill.
The only difference being that you don't get to go to Starcucks and finance their "atmo".
Everything could always be claimed to be as inefficient spending though. Oh, you like coffee, so you should buy the press and make your own and then you'll save money. Sure.
So then what else? Should a person never go out to eat? Its eternally cheaper to just make your own bread and drink water from a lake or something. You could be spending your money better by not ever spending it on anything. -
2020-07-23 at 2:55 PM UTC
-
2020-07-23 at 2:55 PM UTCI even go get coffee at a coffee shop myself sometimes. It's cool. Specially when I want a more complicated sugary drink, I like having someone who knows what they're doing make it for me and sit and enjoy the vibe. But that's just occasionally, as a treat.
That's just what it is, you are minimizing the utility you derive from your spending rather than maximizing it, because you have bought into gay consoomerism. -
2020-07-23 at 2:59 PM UTCI just like their dark roast, cant find it in the store or i would make it myself
-
2020-07-23 at 2:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Everything could always be claimed to be as inefficient spending though. Oh, you like coffee, so you should buy the press and make your own and then you'll save money. Sure.
So then what else? Should a person never go out to eat? Its eternally cheaper to just make your own bread and drink water from a lake or something. You could be spending your money better by not ever spending it on anything.
Nobody said "never".
Yeah if you said you spent $50 every day on restaurant food on a $2K income, I'd think you were either really busy (and probably it is an investment into the time you spend working instead), or really stupid and inept at cooking.
Nobody is talking about occasional luxury spending, that's fine. But yeah going out to pay a 5000% markup for basic shit you can make at home EVERY SINGLE DAY is stupid. It's ridiculous. It's worthy of ridicule. -
2020-07-23 at 3 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE I even go get coffee at a coffee shop myself sometimes. It's cool. Specially when I want a more complicated sugary drink, I like having someone who knows what they're doing make it for me and sit and enjoy the vibe. But that's just occasionally, as a treat.
That's just what it is, you are minimizing the utility you derive from your spending rather than maximizing it, because you have bought into gay consoomerism.
So you have a formula? You only "treat yourself" a determined and specifically calculated number of times per week? How is that different than "treating yourself" every day once a day with a calculated coffee purchase that you enjoy? Bevause person a treats themselves once a day and person b treats themselves once a week, it's still the same concept. Yiure just changing timespans. -
2020-07-23 at 3 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Both of you are attacking straw men. It's not THAT you enjoy getting stuff by spending but that you spend inefficiently.
As an example: you are a regular coffee drinker, that means it would actually make sense for you to spend like 30 bucks on an Aeropress and learn how to make it yourself and spend maybe $50/mo on ingredients tops, plus it would probably be tastier and you would learn a skill.
The only difference being that you don't get to go to Starcucks and finance their "atmo".
stupid bangle must have a herd of pigs, cows and goats in his backyard. -
2020-07-23 at 3:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So you have a formula? You only "treat yourself" a determined and specifically calculated number of times per week? How is that different than "treating yourself" every day once a day with a calculated coffee purchase that you enjoy? Bevause person a treats themselves once a day and person b treats themselves once a week, it's still the same concept. Yiure just changing timespans.
I don't have a formula, I just don't make it a habit. I know you are not the Buddha so your desires are unlimited, if you wanted you could fulfill even more of them by just being more efficient. It is just a mathematical reality.
Why would you ever want to minimize your utility. -
2020-07-23 at 3:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE I don't have a formula, I just don't make it a habit. I know you are not the Buddha so your desires are unlimited, if you wanted you could fulfill even more of them by just being more efficient. It is just a mathematical reality.
Why would you ever want to minimize your utility.
I think we agree here. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong with my homeless to george soros analogy. Anyone ever could always spend more efficiently. -
2020-07-23 at 3:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I think we agree here. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong with my homeless to george soros analogy. Anyone ever could always spend more efficiently.
Not really.
For example you're like the 4th link in the supply chain by the time you buy meat from the store, the 5th if you go to a restaurant. You could argue "well why don't you raise your own meat?" But the difference in markup from link 4 to 5 is far bigger than the difference in markups from 0-4.
Would it be more efficient for me to raise my own meat? Not really, those are all relatively small markups I can pay due to the advantages of scale, compared to me making it myself without the scale.
Would it be more efficient to cook myself rather than paying for a restaurant to do it? Absolutely it would, because whatever advantages they got from the scale of their restaurant is irrelevant to me when they are just transferring the labour of my cooking to another person, where there is no advantage gained except simply not doing the thing myself. -
2020-07-23 at 3:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Not really.
For example you're like the 4th link in the supply chain by the time you buy meat from the store, the 5th if you go to a restaurant. You could argue "well why don't you raise your own meat?" But the difference in markup from link 4 to 5 is far bigger than the difference in markups from 0-4.
Would it be more efficient for me to raise my own meat? Not really, those are all relatively small markups I can pay due to the advantages of scale, compared to me making it myself without the scale.
Would it be more efficient to cook myself rather than paying for a restaurant to do it? Absolutely it would, because whatever advantages they got from the scale of their restaurant is irrelevant to me when they are just transferring the labour of my cooking to another person, where there is no advantage gained except simply not doing the thing myself.
So, like I said, anyone could always spend their more efficiently. -
2020-07-23 at 3:51 PM UTC
-
2020-07-23 at 3:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE No. It's possible to reach a reasonable equilibrium point where you are spending pretty close to as efficiently as possible. Just because something costs less to do doesn't mean it is more efficient.
I'm not arguing that m7. I understand what you're saying, even when spending more equals efficiency. Of course. Like buying a car straight up will cost more money than "efficiently" making payments on it over the next few years, but the straight up purchase is actually more efficient. I get that.
My whole point is that money could always be spent more efficiently. Theres never an exact moment where you could say "I've utilized my money as efficiently as humanly possible." Unless you dont have money maybe. That's the most efficient spending. You sit on the ground next to your garden and your water well. Lol -
2020-07-23 at 4:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I'm not arguing that m7. I understand what you're saying, even when spending more equals efficiency. Of course. Like buying a car straight up will cost more money than "efficiently" making payments on it over the next few years, but the straight up purchase is actually more efficient. I get that.
My whole point is that money could always be spent more efficiently. Theres never an exact moment where you could say "I've utilized my money as efficiently as humanly possible." Unless you dont have money maybe. That's the most efficient spending. You sit on the ground next to your garden and your water well. Lol
I'm not disagreeing I'm just saying that it doesn't make a difference: for example there is no exact moment where a pot gets so hot where you say "I have officially but we myself". That doesn't mean one cannot clearly point out that you shouldn't put your hand on a 110C pot.
Your argument is "there are no discrete divisions in this [system] so any distinction is arbitrarily defined."
I'm telling you "no, you can apply other non-arbitrary criteria from outside of this [system]" -
2020-07-23 at 4:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE I'm not disagreeing I'm just saying that it doesn't make a difference: for example there is no exact moment where a pot gets so hot where you say "I have officially but we myself". That doesn't mean one cannot clearly point out that you shouldn't put your hand on a 110C pot.
Your argument is "there are no discrete divisions in this [system] so any distinction is arbitrarily defined."
I'm telling you "no, you can apply other non-arbitrary criteria from outside of this [system]"
I think I understand but I might not. You're obviously smarter than I am.
This all started from scrons saying he spends 4 dollars a day on coffee, right?
And then someone said "well that's why the poor will always be poor."
And then I'm just saying, who the fuck is to say hes poor? What even is poor? If you have enough money to be able to actually spend 4 dollars a day on coffee, I'd say you're not poor. Could you buy the coffee thing and save money overall, yes. The same way we could cancel our internet subscriptions and just start sending one another a letter in the mail once a month and that's how we talk from now on. -
2020-07-23 at 5:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I think I understand but I might not. You're obviously smarter than I am.
This all started from scrons saying he spends 4 dollars a day on coffee, right?
And then someone said "well that's why the poor will always be poor."
And then I'm just saying, who the fuck is to say hes poor? What even is poor? If you have enough money to be able to actually spend 4 dollars a day on coffee, I'd say you're not poor.
Would you prefer to say that "this is why people who don't have a lot of money continue to not have a lot of money"?Could you buy the coffee thing and save money overall, yes. The same way we could cancel our internet subscriptions and just start sending one another a letter in the mail once a month and that's how we talk from now on.
First of all, unless someone starts Nutflix, porn by mail doesn't work. -
2020-07-23 at 5:13 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-07-23 at 5:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Would you prefer to say that "this is why people who don't have a lot of money continue to not have a lot of money"?
Honestly, yeah. That makes more sense. The poor thing insinuates that scron is POOR.
I'm still wondering what it means to be poor. Straight up poor. To me being poor means that you literally cannot even spend an ounce of whatever money you somehow have on anything other than the cheapest of foods and waters. You have no choice. You're poor.
If you can spend 4 bucks a day on coffee you're probably not poor. Not even probably. You're just, not poor.
If you want to bring in the poverty line I guess that's a little different and I can see how it makes sense that a good number of people stay below that line simply because of their inefficient spending habits. But they, too, just wanna feel like normal people. And they are normal people. It makes a person feel good to be able to go out to eat or get a coffee or whatever the fuck.
But yeah saying "this is why you'll always not have more money" in response to him saying he spends 120 dollars a month on coffee, is just arbitrary. Like, no shit? -
2020-07-24 at 11:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Bill Krozby You're such a victim. Most people just get the sniffles. If this is anywhere near as real as they say it is, I probably already had it. I had a 102 temp several months back and I felt fine. And I'm even "at risk" compared to a lot of people because of my asthma.
It doesn't ad up how people will hang with their friends and family without mask on, but then go to the grocery store where theres a million people there burping and farting, and touching everything on the shelves.
And why jack all the tp? Like can't you just buy the normal amount of tp you always buy instead of hoarding everything because you're hysterical?
Then why did you take your temp? Just for shits? Is this some form of OCD?
Oh, wait, you're lying to make yourself seem cool. You actually felt like shit and needed to confirm.
