Oh my gawd, now he's attempting to say he KNOWS how "liberals" think when it comes to material possessions. Not that he's ever given a definition of what he considers a "liberal" to be...

For fuck's sake, that's more of a Buddhist concept to ponder. Not a "liberal" one.

Unless, for example, we notice that most of the "conservative" material hogs are the 1% that own the 75% of this country.

That group, alas, that Nazi airforce aspires to be in. But never will be.

A kiss-ass for the uber-wealthy. How pathetic.

"Liberals", ahem, however you want to define that group that is to be vilified (please, come up with a definition, turdburglar) like to own stuff just as much as the next unenlightened person. Material possessions define who one is, in many cases (ie: Nazi airforce would LOVE to own a BMW, because it would show how successful he is in the material world... but he doesn't. A "liberal", I suppose, would be proud to own a Toyota Prius, as it would show they want to use less petroleum and not hog what's left of our planet's limited resources). Someone who owns a BMW or a Prius is defining themselves by what they HAVE, not who they ARE.

Conservative or "liberal", it's not about what you own. It's about how you achieve owning it and what you use it for.

Books, music, art, and good organic food... all "liberal" weaknesses.

Large gashog vehicles, Brooks Brothers suits, and oversized gold watches...
"conservative" desires to appear superior to others.

What stuff do you think is more important? And truly, does it matter? In the end, you can't take it with you, and no, whoever dies with the most toys does NOT win. They just die.

What matters is what you DO, not what you OWN.

But maybe that's too obvious for those obsessed with attempting to pigeonhole an entire culture... an undefined one, at that.

yest, quite true. also true.

the people who are disparaging the women are "classic liberals"....

anyone who thinks that one specific individual should be more focused on other peoples troubles then their own is, frankly, an idiot. That flies in the face of logic, human nature, and all rationality.

if you care more about people dying in Chad, Africa then you do about yourself or the people that you love, you are indeed a moron.....but Al Gore would probably be proud of you.

it does take much to understand how an individual "functions", and even less to understand how a group of individuals who tend to adhere to the same mental processes function.

to the layman, this is called "observation skills"

That last line says more about your self-absorbed bullshit personality than the reams of crapulence you spew here constantly.

It shows what an egotistical scumbag you are.

Hey, aren't you the one who claims you were homeless once upon a time?

I see...

hahaaha..... as always, quite a pleasure conversing with you as well.

it's comforting to know some things never change. Hi Klimt.

reality is as reality does. I'm not egotistical.... .it's called "logic"

tis true. i slept in a covered slide in a park.

....said the blind man.

... to the totally ignorant asshole.

You still don't get it. It's your belief that you can't be wrong becuase you use logic that makes you egotistical. It's really really surprising how many times you claim reality is as reality does but completly fail to do anything to prove it. Mind you , you should be used to repeated abject failure by now.

I bet it's never even occured to you that logic is only as good as the (in your case ill-informed and feeble) mind that uses it. Hell any basic book or course on logic will cover areas and arguements where the logic is correct but the arguement is still factually wrong. The fact that you claim extensive knowledge on logic yet are ignorant of the basics makes you either delusional or a liar.

* sigh *

Its all as simple as this:

1. We know lufty believes anyone changing his or her mind is "assinine and foolish".

2. Look up the stereotypes thread. Stereotypes -- according to lufty -- are grounded in
truth.

3. Lufty is widely stereotyped as someone ill mannered and ignorant.

hence, by lufty-logic, he can either change his premise and be assinine and foolish.. or accept his status as ignorant.

Logically, luft is irrelevent. If not boorish to boot.

nah.

Note the modus operandi. Say just enough to say something inflammatory. When the facts point otherwise, slyly keep reframing. "I wasn't talking about conservatives, republicans or 3 toed sloths.. just liberals". Sound familiar?

By the way, anti-materialism might be most closely associated with Buddhism, yet is also prevalent in christianity. I don't have the chapter and verses, and am working off the top of my head here-- but do recall Jesus and the money changers in the temple, or advice to the rich man's son of "sell it all to follow me". The point being that implying materialism is solely a cynical trait of liberal minded people is ludicris, in light of high-visibility christian conservatives.

As I said, the cynicism involved with materialism is not confined to a party or philosophy. While bumber stickers -- 'he who dies with the most toys.. wins" are sarcastic, true, they also hold a lot of truth. Check out your suburban lexus dealer, there are quite a few people whose attitude is, 'I can afford it, so I'll buy it', tacit and de facto support of materialism-- probably not a very liberal crowd either. The liberals are buying priuses and mini-coopers down the street. A flawed premise starts the thread.

ha... as usual Skind, you are incorrect. What is it i have said that you feel is not logical?

I have said this: ....I have found this to be highly true. So then, you are quibbling with this assesment, and you believe this to be incorrect and not logical, somehow?

it is not difficult to be on the correct side of logic. one merely follows the inevitable flow of events, and logical reasoning.

nobody is saying or implying this..... what I said is: everyone says "it's bad to want to have items and possessions", but many people come out in support of non-materialism...yet these same people are usually the biggest proponents of materialism, in their daily life

BTW--did you know Klimt owns a Porsche? (I'd ride with her anywhere( white knuckles adorned and praying silently))

I want stuff, and some of it quite badly, but I wouldn't tread on orphans to get it, and I wouldn't throw a fit if the store had run out. I'm constantly adjusting my halo.

would you walk over orphans and kill them in the process, if it was necessary in order to save the lives of other orphans? i would!

Luftwaffe's flaw has nothing to do with logic. It's that he wants to post on here, but is so worried about being wrong that the only statements he can make are meaningless or trivial (see the thread about donating clothing to stop child abuse). Basically he won't say anything that he can't back up with logic, but this means being so careful with what he does say that he never really says anything at all.

I think he would see it as a failing if he adopted a position based on his own opinion. He states facts, either arbitrarily or deliberately provocatively phrased, because he is either scared or incapable of stepping out of that comfort zone. If he puts forward an opinion, he never bothers to defend it beyond restating it as if it were fact, so why bother with him?

The answer is: because you're bored. I'm pretty sure that's why he posts here too. He'd like to think he's different from the dumb libs of the board, but really, we're all here because we don't have anything better to do than lambast each other's opinions. I just think it's a shame that he'd rather state facts divorced from any context that would give them meaning, rather than take the risk of being wrong and using those facts as the basis to voice an opinion. I mean, yeah, someone might argue with it. But they argue with him anyway, so what's the difference?

Sooooo, on the one hand, lufty responds to this:
With this:

Yet if we scroll up the thread to post #4, we see this.

I dunno, but I am thinking "exposed" here.

I'd say a fair read of luft's original post (#4) is that he is both saying and implying what he labels as liberals are in fact materialists on some cynical level. I'd say the sentence "liberals have a love/hate relationship with materialism..." is a pretty direct implication a liberal is a cynical materialist, in his opinion. To deny anyone is saying this (that'd be "nobody is saying or implying this....." ) is to deny his own words.

Of course, he'll say I'm just mis-reading the two posts or some such nonsense. Again, its classic backpedalling and positioning. If I have to guess, he'll be claiming a loophole on the word solely in my quote. He wasn't talking about 'everyone' just what he calls liberals. Kind of a childish dodge around his own words.

I'd prefer to believe I've -er- aligned myself to reality (is that the phrase?), and seen something for what it is. Or that thing from the old board, that if you can't remember what you've already posted in a thread you are -um- assinine? foolish?

I do own a Porsche. A 1982 924, alpine white with a sunroof and a bitchin' Blaupunkt stereo. It gets 27 mpg. And I bought it with money I earned all by myself *big blinking doe eyes*. Nope, I don't have any shame about owning it. I wanted it, I bought it. It's mine. Fun as hell to drive.

But does it define who I am? No. As a matter of fact, it's a vehicle. A nice, GERMAN vehicle. I'm sure Nazi airforce is jealous as hell.

But then again, it's not what you have, it's who you are. And I know who YOU are, sweetums.

I'd be most concerned about the number of mirrors one owns... look your own truth in the eye and see if it stands up to the light of reason.

Ta ta, titmouse. Time for me to get into my Subaru and go grocery shopping (I own an Outback as well, sheesh, I own two cars, I guess that makes me a craven consumer).

A little thing to think about: we all own things, but do we all attempt to help others by donating things we no longer use and/or give money to charities? How about a neighbor whose had a fire? Do we help them or just let it ride, thinking "ah well, they probably have insurance."

The biggest "problem" with materialism is being consumed by it. If one sees objects for what they are (a means to an end, useful but not always necessary, accessories to make one look important) and one can WALK AWAY with no regrets (your house is on fire, it's the television or the dog, which one are you gonna save? And no, it's either/or, not BOTH), then you aren't a craven materialistic pig. If you can buy a pair of sneakers for ten bucks at PayLess because you need sneakers... and be happy that you can buy them, even though they aren't sweatshop made hundred dollar Nikes...

... I guess that makes you a consumer. But a principled one.

I now refer you all to the George Carlin riff on "STUFF". Go find it and grok it.