341–344 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My earlier statement re. whether or not you're delusional stands then. All the best.
No, but it does show you need to resort to insult in order to argue, which in turn reveals the weakness of your beliefs and hurts your own advocacy by not putting forward the best form of your argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it does show you need to resort to insult in order to argue, which in turn reveals the weakness of your beliefs and hurts your own advocacy by not putting forward the best form of your argument.
It's not an insult. I genuinely believe this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an insult. I genuinely believe this.
You can genuinely believe something insulting. And for what it's worth, I don't think you genuinely believe this. It's much more likely you're using a pathos appeal, as your logos argument has failed, which I'm telling you actually weakens your ability to execute your own goals, as it's entirely transparent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the story highlights a problem irrespective of the messenger. Some people cannot help but judge and opine on other's behavior where they have no context, or any moral basis to render that judement. We do this all the time in private, but politicians, or public figures, use the same propensity to pass devastating and life hampering policies, or inflame public opinion against a group of people. All I'm really h…
I find this argument is utterly destroyed by the fact that the message is a complaint about the 'other side' telling her to modify behavior to spend less money. Yet her behaviors include some really egregious spending. How could I separate the two? Admittedly, I didn't have to know she made such an egregiously bad decision with her money to know she's wrong. I judged that immediately upon starting the essay because i…
But therein lies your flaw, it's advice that is inherently based on an evaluation of the problem.
When someone judges you for the problem that they think you have, then offers advice, you can't simply ignore the advice and remain on neutral ground.
There remains the implicit offense of the judgement made by the person who is offering the advice.
"You are poor because you are spending your money frivolously."
"You being poor is a choice you've made based on your decisions and priorities."
It's not as simple as just saying "Cool, i'll ignore this advice, and remain no worse off." You have to continue to exist in the world where this person gets to believe these things about you and others like you, without being challenged.
So, no, I don't think the people getting mad at Suze Orman (or whoever else is making similar judgements) because they are defensive of their poor spending. I think they are defensive of the character judgement being made and believe it must be responded to.
Lastly, and this is directly at you: Everyone is entitled to some amount of joy. Some joys are cheaper than others. Some joys are more addictive than others. There is definitely a further element of elitist judgement in the "stop buying $5" advice - "you are not entitled to joy because you can't afford it."
But you went even further. By the time you are talking about "substance addiction" the solution isn't just "you could cut but choose not to". That's literally the meaning of addiction - that you CAN'T just cut it. Not without significant help and latitude to go through a pretty dark withdrawal period. Those of us with money and support structures and fewer obligations can just take off to rehab. This is not an option for someone on subsistence poverty. You can judge someone's character for having gotten into that position in the first place, but you have to realize it's not a coincidence that poverty and addiction are such close neighbors. It perpetuates through generations. Substances ease the load of existence for those with the heaviest load, and it's easy to say to avoid the short term pleasure for the long term consequences when you're not yourself in that position.