Diamonds a girls best friend? I think not!

[Revoltingest]

I would certainly agree if every item of trade required such a ridiculous amount of exploitation and violence. 20% of the entire trade is illicit and the market fuels warfare in Africa. Some of the externalizations of our consumerism is not really an acceptable thing, and the overall affect on society is lessened, not cultivated.

So there's a downside to diamonds. There's a downside to dang near everything.
Is this worse than others? Energy cost is low. Violence is less than oil dependent luxuries.
They're less dangerous to wear in public than than fur. And they're not fattening.

 

[dust1n]

You wouldn't have to worry, because of the military.

It doesn't have to be ancient times to realize that a strong military is a deterrent to one country invading another. You think Israel would be safe (relatively speaking) if they didn't have such a powerful military? What else would be stopping Insurgents/geurilla's from flooding the border from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or Jordan and killing civilians based solely on their religious views?

While your little town may not be a strategic location, Our country is, location wise. It would be quite difficult for another country, short of Canada and Mexico to invade it. However, without a military, I would wager there would be some that would try, and would probably succeed.

Ah, I see. I'd much rather not have a military when it is unnecessary to do so. My criticizing of our own military is not so much that it exists in some form or another -- I have no problem with having an army at home to protect in times of needs. What I do have a problem with is the century or so spent using the military to secure financial routes, often dropping $50,000 bombs on foreign children (talk about pork spending), arms dealing to practically ever bad person in existence, etc. etc.

As far as our military is concerned, I'd rather die than be allotted its 'protection,' because it is simply a corrupt establishment. I fear more the military-industrial complex than I do death.

 

[dust1n]

So there's a downside to diamonds. There's a downside to dang near everything.
Is this worse than others? Energy cost is low. Violence is less than oil dependent luxuries.
They're less dangerous to wear in public than than fur. And they're not fattening.

There sure is a downside to everything; such is the nature of our existence.. am I right? But the downside to diamonds for practically the whole north half of Africa for the last 100 years is certainly inexcusable. You are probably right that even then, oil is a way more dangerous product. You won't hear any argument from me regarding that point, but neither are really acceptable, unlike the trading of other and (obviously more necessary) goods.

 

[Vendetta]

Ah, I see. I'd much rather not have a military when it is unnecessary to do so. My criticizing of our own military is not so much that it exists in some form or another -- I have no problem with having an army at home to protect in times of needs. What I do have a problem with is the century or so spent using the military to secure financial routes, often dropping $50,000 bombs on foreign children (talk about pork spending), arms dealing to practically ever bad person in existence, etc. etc.

As far as our military is concerned, I'd rather die than be allotted its 'protection,' because it is simply a corrupt establishment. I fear more the military-industrial complex than I do death.

Seeing how this has dramatically shifted towards talking about the military in a negative fashion I will move this into a new thread and we can argue there.

 

[Bismillah]

I guess I'm lucky. I get a diamond ring, diamonds in my ears, AND attention.

Good point Kathryn, I would say the majority of the time someone invests so much money in a ring it's because they truly care about a person.

Not an either/or situation at all.

 

[Vendetta]

Many employers will not allow employees to have visible tattoos.

Look, you don't like diamond wedding bands apparently. Hopefully you're with someone who feels the same way. However, you're judging others who simply don't feel the same way that you do about something that may or may not be a morally right (or wrong) thing to buy. I mean, there may be times when buying a diamond is wrong or unwise, but it's certainly fine for some people to buy them at some times.

Stop judging people seems your favorite statement lol

I do hope you get MY point on the whole socialization (conditioning) on why people like diamonds. Also, I really wanted to address your comment on ancient cultures who also valued jewlry. Let me ask you something: did the average subject within these ancient kingdoms have jewelry in their household? Were these treasures accessible to the public? I believe if I can recall correctly, most of these fabulous things were reserved for the king and queen or those of a higher social status. Today, almost anyone can buy a diamond or multiple pieces of jewlry.

If I own a mine in Africa and I subject people to an apartheid type situation, so long as I continue to blind you to what is going on, I will continue to make money. You see this is where classical conditioning comes in. The conditioned stimulus, that being the diamond ring illicits an unconditioned response that is you being you the buyer, who goes to the mall or store to purchase the ring.

Like I said, nobody here can convince you that your jewlry is not valuable because it is to you. Just like certain objects that have sentimental value to me, I value. I am just dead set against women being manipulated in thinking emotions can be valued through objects. Not only can such media influence is damaging, but it can create an underlined gender stereotype to men such as the potential husband-to-be who doesn't buy an engagement ring but wants to get married. Society will look down on the man who does not have an engagement ring or a wedding band.

 

[Vendetta]

Good point Kathryn, I would say the majority of the time someone invests so much money in a ring it's because they truly care about a person.

Not an either/or situation at all.

That goes for anything....if I buy my girlfriend GUCCI boots its not because I want to spend $200 for leisure

 

[Bismillah]

If you agree with me Vendetta, then you also agree with the intrinsic value of such an item.

Though I can certainly see your viewpoint and tend to be sympathetic to it.

 

[Vendetta]

If you agree with me Vendetta, then you also agree with the intrinsic value of such an item.

Though I can certainly see your viewpoint and tend to be sympathetic to it.

I agree that we put intrinsic value on items we purchase.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Today, almost anyone can buy a diamond or multiple pieces of jewlry.

That's an accident of capitalism.

 

[Bismillah]

I agree that we put intrinsic value on items we purchase.

Not all items, but luxury goods. For example most of the time there is no intrinsic value for an I-pod, I-phone or whatever device that serves a "purpose".

And that the intrinsic value of an item increases significantly once you buy the item for someone else, especially if it is a large investment.

 

[Vendetta]

Not all items, but luxury goods. For example most of the time there is no intrinsic value for an I-pod, I-phone or whatever device that serves a "purpose".

And that the intrinsic value of an item increases significantly once you buy the item for someone else, especially if it is a large investment.

And an i-pod is not luxury nor carries any intrisic value? Suppose I buy an i-pod for a kid with cancer you don't think that kid will not value it nor make any positive valuable association between me giving it and the experience of receiving a gift?

 

[dust1n]

Not all items, but luxury goods. For example most of the time there is no intrinsic value for an I-pod, I-phone or whatever device that serves a "purpose".

Yeah right. The only worth a diamond has to me is monetary value. If one was given to me, I would sell it if possible to conceal to the person who gave it to me. Besides the fact I can trade them for money, I see an i-Pod having about 1000 times more intrinsic value than a diamond. And the need of coltan for digital information has created very similar 'blood-diamond' scenarios in the Congo. (Just a little fun fact, that last sentence.)

And that the intrinsic value of an item increases significantly once you buy the item for someone else, especially if it is a large investment.

I always thought of it as a cheap cop out. The value of buying something is the idea that so much is sacrificed for the sake of the other person (all those long worked hours, all those blah blah). Kinda of an easy way to sacrifice and assign value to because there is a monetary amount associated with it. Cost vrs. Income creates a sacrifice ratio.

 

[Bismillah]

And an i-pod is not luxury nor carries any intrisic value? Suppose I buy an i-pod for a kid with cancer you don't think that kid will not value it nor make any positive valuable association between me giving it and the experience of receiving a gift?

That's true, but notice I said most of the time

But what establishes that value is the connection and I normally associate that connection with diamond rings. It means just that much to them as opposed to their phone.

Yeah right. The only worth a diamond has to me is monetary value. If one was given to me, I would sell it if possible to conceal to the person who gave it to me. Besides the fact I can trade them for money, I see an i-Pod having about 1000 times more intrinsic value than a diamond. And the need of coltan for digital information has created very similar 'blood-diamond' scenarios in the Congo. (Just a little fun fact, that last sentence.)

Ok so maybe I-pod was a bad example I know how some people love their music

I meant appliances that serve a practical purpose. If you buy a wedding ring for your wife would you sell it to buy a new laptop?

I always thought of it as a cheap cop out. The value of buying something is the idea that so much is sacrificed for the sake of the other person (all those long worked hours, all those blah blah). Kinda of an easy way to sacrifice and assign value to because there is a monetary amount associated with it. Cost vrs. Income creates a sacrifice ratio.

Haha but that is not a cheap cop-out for the average man! He works long and hard, but still spends exorbitantly on his wife. I think it is a reflection of self-sacrfice, but you are obviously no romantic!

 

[dust1n]

Ok so maybe I-pod was a bad example I know how some people love their music

I meant appliances that serve a practical purpose. If you buy a wedding ring for your wife would you sell it to buy a new laptop?

Haha but that is not a cheap cop-out for the average man! He works long and hard, but still spends exorbitantly on his wife. I think it is a reflection of self-sacrfice, but you are obviously no romantic!

I suppose I am quite biased, for I don't believe in marriage for my own purposes. He may work long and hard, but we all do inevitably anyways. Would you leave the city and take a reduction in pay to accompany a moving girl who is going to school? Would you actually fight a man who was adamantly hitting on your wife close to the point of battery, would you stab him if need be?

Unnecessary sacrifices are a little disgusting to me, and engagement rings are one of those unnecessary sacrifices. The sacrifice is made in self-interest more than anything anyways.

 

[dust1n]

Ah, Gibran illustrates notions well.

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]You give but little when you give your possessions, it is when you give of yourself that you truely give."[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[dust1n]

“The human contribution is the essential ingredient. It is only in the giving of oneself to others that we truly live.” - Ethyl Percy Andrus:

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I know this much - the idea of my husband making secret trips to his "diamond connection," asking them to look for two perfect matched stones for my earrings, then going back several times to discuss different options and settings, then paying for them and picking them up in their little velvet box, and making a point to include my parents when he gave them to me for my birthday, and him noticing and being pleased that I wear them all the time - and complete strangers telling me that they can tell the quality of the stones - the same stones that I see every time I look in the mirror and which remind me of my husband's love and attention...

Call me whatever you want - I don't care. I enjoy wearing these diamonds, and I am very grateful to my adorable husband who spoils me and enjoys doing so.

Point: Neither of us make a habit of showering the other with gifts. Most of what we buy, we buy together for mutual enjoyment. For example, we've wanted a hot tub ever since we got married, and this weekend we're buying one for our anniversary. Now THAT'S romantic!

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Ah, I see. I'd much rather not have a military when it is unnecessary to do so. My criticizing of our own military is not so much that it exists in some form or another -- I have no problem with having an army at home to protect in times of needs. What I do have a problem with is the century or so spent using the military to secure financial routes, often dropping $50,000 bombs on foreign children (talk about pork spending), arms dealing to practically ever bad person in existence, etc. etc.

As far as our military is concerned, I'd rather die than be allotted its 'protection,' because it is simply a corrupt establishment. I fear more the military-industrial complex than I do death.

Hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. As long as you acknowledge that you have said right because of the military

 

[dust1n]

Hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. As long as you acknowledge that you have said right because of the military

I don't have said right because of a military. If anything, I have said right because of American terrorists who wreaked havoc and waged gorilla war on the British, which is not a military by any sense of the word.