5 ms·

Splurging every once in a while does not inherently make someone “fiscally irresponsible.” For many people, especially on this forum, $3k-$5k for a ring is lite

Splurging every once in a while does not inherently make someone “fiscally irresponsible.” For many people, especially on this forum, $3k-$5k for a ring is literally a few days work or less worth of pay. (Please no one get pedantic on ring cost to me, absolutely not the point of this comment)

Retric 3y ago
It’s not the cost that’s the issue, it’s the underlying desire. Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Also, ‘a few days salary’ rather defeats the rituals purpose.
- tired-turtle 3y ago
  Eh, I’m fervently anti-diamond (they’re silly imo), but I can acknowledge that, to some, they represent (I think?) a lasting commitment and are a cultural tradition. If the desire is emotional, then there’s no reasoning with it anyway. (And not everything in life need be logical.)
  - callalex 3y ago
    Does it count as a cultural tradition if it was manufactured within the last 2 generations? It’s kinda like asking a family if they celebrate Toyotathon or Hondadays as a tradition.
    - yayitswei 3y ago
      KFC Christmas dinner in Japan is a fun one. To be fair, all of our major holidays have been co-opted by corporations and they are still warmly celebrated. Going back to wedding rings, giving your new partner something of value is a very old tradition indeed (though what's perceived as valuable has changed greatly).
      - Retric 3y ago
        Giving a partner something of actual value is one thing, but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying. That purchase needs to support an entire industry and massive marketing campaign around maintaining an artificial tradition.
        benj111 3y ago
        Define value. You might not value it, but I dare say you value things that I don't value. Define artificial tradition. Yes someone can invent it, but it requires people to actually adopt it. All the trappings of Christmas were invented by someone. They aren't 'artificial' though
        Retric 3y ago
        Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for. Artificial tradition as in created by a marketing campaign to sell a product. Same things as eating “KFC on Christmas” in Japan or more recently “Happy Honda Days” just slightly older and more widespread.
        benj111 3y ago
        >but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying >Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for So if someone can sell you a diamond for X, it is worth X. So the diamond is worth what you're paying. Was Christmas created to sell Christianity? I just don't get the distinction. A 'natural' tradition isn't somehow more wholesome, we've just forgotten who invented it. And the meaning still derives from the people partaking in that tradition.
        Retric 3y ago
        > So if someone can sell you a diamond for X, it is worth X. Note quite, when most people buy land the seller doesn’t receive the full amount you pay realtors get their cut of the transaction. Same deal with used cars etc, the transaction costs are removed from the sales price when calculating value. Commercial Diamonds are just an unusually extreme case. > I just don't get the distinction. A 'natural' tradition isn't somehow more wholesome, we've just forgotten who invented it. And the meaning still derives from the people partaking in that tradition. The meaning of diamonds still derives from advertising which is the haven’t stopped because people stop caring when they do. This clearly demonstrates the artificial nature of what’s happening. Nobody needs to advertise saying excuse me if you bump into someone in a crowd, that has been maintained culturally for a long time without outside influence. Saying someone created it therefore it’s all the same is a meaningless statement. People create different things, saying someone created something doesn’t imply what that thing is.
    - oblio 3y ago
      Yes, it counts. If you look at most modern traditions, 90% of them are less than 100-150 years old. Christmas today looks nothing like Christmas in 1900, across the world. Most of the foods today (and I'm not talking about fast food) were invented in the same period. At least their modern incarnations, sometimes they have really old names but the old versions had very little in common with the current food.
      - Retric 3y ago
        I disagree, Tinsel is at the edge of that 150 year window only going back to 1890’s, but Christmas hasn’t changed that much from 200 years ago. If you look at old pictures Christmas trees taken in 1900 it looks basically the same as one today except for the LED lighting showing how slowly things evolved. Documentation isn’t that great, but back in the 1450’s people decorated fir trees with apples alongside other ornaments which is the origin of modern round ornaments. By the 1530 there where rules limiting people to one tree in their homes. Massachusetts outlawed Christmas celebrations back in 1659 outside of Church attendance. The tradition had spread well outside of Germany even back in 1841 Winser Castle had a Christmas Tree.
        oblio 3y ago
        You're talking about Central and Northern Europe (+ their colonies). Christmas in Eastern Europe and most other places looked nothing like that. Heck, Seychelles and Hawaii decorate their local trees like they're fir trees in Scandinavia.
        Retric 3y ago
        Yes the tradition spread, but people don’t live in the same place our ancestors did 600 years ago either. Traditions diffuse across generations, cultures, and geographic borders that doesn’t somehow make them new or fake.
        oblio 3y ago
        I don't recall where I read it, but: > Yes the tradition spread, but people don’t live in the same place our ancestors did 600 years ago either. Yes, they do :-) The vast majority of people, especially in underdeveloped or developing countries, DO live in the general area where their ancestors moved during the last migration, which for some was thousands of years ago. People really don't move away unless it's easy or they're forced to. And my comment also included stuff like food. Most current food is modern.
  - pierat 3y ago
    I like diamonds. They are pretty. But we also look at the ethics of most diamonds. And aside custom lab grown, child exploitation and murder are the norm. I ethically refuse to pay any money into that system of child exploitation, child murder, and mass violence.
- oezi 3y ago
  Finding irrationality unacceptable is also irrational.
  - Retric 3y ago
    This isn’t some random person off the street, this is someone you’re hopefully spending the majority of your life with. It’s ok to be picky.
    - Exoristos 3y ago
      The point is there's no one who is not irrational. It's foundationally human.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Ignoring differences in magnitude is a mistake. Buying a lottery ticket when the jackpot hits a billion dollars and blowing 100k in Las Vegas are both gambling, but the first is essentially harmless fun while the second is a sign of deeper issues.
        oezi 3y ago
        Right, but OP didn't focus on magnitudes. He found irrationality unacceptable. So likely he wouldn't marry a lottery player or horoscope reader.
      - serf 3y ago
        there is a difference between people who see in themselves that irrationality and express a desire to change or improve, and those that decide that the world needs to bend towards the irrationality, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes others. A line should be drawn when the irrationality of one causes inarguable and debilitating friction in the relationships of that person. In other words : It's okay to be the person who loves pink, dresses in pink, bathes in pink -- until it disallows that person to find meaningful work/friends/mates/whatever; then it's more than just human irrationality, it's the inability to cope with others and the world at large.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  > The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Positional goods have real effects, mediated by other people, in a way that astrology doesn't directly. Reducing the role of such things is often good life advice, and pushing back on mined diamonds in particular is morally motivated as well, but I don't think it's right to consider it the same as astrology.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mongol 3y ago
  It is no different than all material traditions around Christmas.
- chewz 3y ago
  > Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. How about spirituality or religion?
  - oblio 3y ago
    I'm fairly sure that if someone is strongly against astrology and irrationality, they're probably against religion, too :-)
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Spending money on something expensive but valueless to appease someone is starting what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership on the wrong foot. I'm happy to get my fiancé something expensive, as long as it's valuable. I want her to have something valuable if I fail as a husband, it's more meaningful, it's a real commitment rather than a demonstration of willingness to appease. A woman that can't see that distinction is, to me, a woman that isn't interested in building a future.
wrp 3y ago
I am also against buying expensive stones, but for a different reason. If you view diamonds as status symbols, buying them is not irrational. It's just an approach to life that I don't follow.
saiya-jin 3y ago
I don't have problem with the cost so much (but serious proposals were supposed to be 3x the salary, no? so you lose quite a bit) but rather overall business and how it manipulates people. From poor people destroying their lives in Congo open pit mines to deBeers laughing in your face when selling you small rock which is not that rare for as much money as you are willing to accept. And if you got any form of certificate from then that your specific diamond is not blood diamond, well that paper has less value than used toilet paper, nobody could ever check or enforce that. So people here mentioning how their wives glow when looking at diamonds, well they are looking at shiny human suffering. And if future wife doesn't care enough about that, well you just learned a very interesting personality trait of her, without the need to go through years of relationship.

Retric 3y ago

It’s not the cost that’s the issue, it’s the underlying desire. Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Also, ‘a few days salary’ rather defeats the rituals purpose.

tired-turtle 3y ago
Eh, I’m fervently anti-diamond (they’re silly imo), but I can acknowledge that, to some, they represent (I think?) a lasting commitment and are a cultural tradition. If the desire is emotional, then there’s no reasoning with it anyway. (And not everything in life need be logical.)
- callalex 3y ago
  Does it count as a cultural tradition if it was manufactured within the last 2 generations? It’s kinda like asking a family if they celebrate Toyotathon or Hondadays as a tradition.
  - yayitswei 3y ago
    KFC Christmas dinner in Japan is a fun one. To be fair, all of our major holidays have been co-opted by corporations and they are still warmly celebrated. Going back to wedding rings, giving your new partner something of value is a very old tradition indeed (though what's perceived as valuable has changed greatly).
    - Retric 3y ago
      Giving a partner something of actual value is one thing, but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying. That purchase needs to support an entire industry and massive marketing campaign around maintaining an artificial tradition.
      - benj111 3y ago
        Define value. You might not value it, but I dare say you value things that I don't value. Define artificial tradition. Yes someone can invent it, but it requires people to actually adopt it. All the trappings of Christmas were invented by someone. They aren't 'artificial' though
        Retric 3y ago
        Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for. Artificial tradition as in created by a marketing campaign to sell a product. Same things as eating “KFC on Christmas” in Japan or more recently “Happy Honda Days” just slightly older and more widespread.
        benj111 3y ago
        >but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying >Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for So if someone can sell you a diamond for X, it is worth X. So the diamond is worth what you're paying. Was Christmas created to sell Christianity? I just don't get the distinction. A 'natural' tradition isn't somehow more wholesome, we've just forgotten who invented it. And the meaning still derives from the people partaking in that tradition.
        Retric 3y ago
        > So if someone can sell you a diamond for X, it is worth X. Note quite, when most people buy land the seller doesn’t receive the full amount you pay realtors get their cut of the transaction. Same deal with used cars etc, the transaction costs are removed from the sales price when calculating value. Commercial Diamonds are just an unusually extreme case. > I just don't get the distinction. A 'natural' tradition isn't somehow more wholesome, we've just forgotten who invented it. And the meaning still derives from the people partaking in that tradition. The meaning of diamonds still derives from advertising which is the haven’t stopped because people stop caring when they do. This clearly demonstrates the artificial nature of what’s happening. Nobody needs to advertise saying excuse me if you bump into someone in a crowd, that has been maintained culturally for a long time without outside influence. Saying someone created it therefore it’s all the same is a meaningless statement. People create different things, saying someone created something doesn’t imply what that thing is.
  - oblio 3y ago
    Yes, it counts. If you look at most modern traditions, 90% of them are less than 100-150 years old. Christmas today looks nothing like Christmas in 1900, across the world. Most of the foods today (and I'm not talking about fast food) were invented in the same period. At least their modern incarnations, sometimes they have really old names but the old versions had very little in common with the current food.
    - Retric 3y ago
      I disagree, Tinsel is at the edge of that 150 year window only going back to 1890’s, but Christmas hasn’t changed that much from 200 years ago. If you look at old pictures Christmas trees taken in 1900 it looks basically the same as one today except for the LED lighting showing how slowly things evolved. Documentation isn’t that great, but back in the 1450’s people decorated fir trees with apples alongside other ornaments which is the origin of modern round ornaments. By the 1530 there where rules limiting people to one tree in their homes. Massachusetts outlawed Christmas celebrations back in 1659 outside of Church attendance. The tradition had spread well outside of Germany even back in 1841 Winser Castle had a Christmas Tree.
      - oblio 3y ago
        You're talking about Central and Northern Europe (+ their colonies). Christmas in Eastern Europe and most other places looked nothing like that. Heck, Seychelles and Hawaii decorate their local trees like they're fir trees in Scandinavia.
        Retric 3y ago
        Yes the tradition spread, but people don’t live in the same place our ancestors did 600 years ago either. Traditions diffuse across generations, cultures, and geographic borders that doesn’t somehow make them new or fake.
        oblio 3y ago
        I don't recall where I read it, but: > Yes the tradition spread, but people don’t live in the same place our ancestors did 600 years ago either. Yes, they do :-) The vast majority of people, especially in underdeveloped or developing countries, DO live in the general area where their ancestors moved during the last migration, which for some was thousands of years ago. People really don't move away unless it's easy or they're forced to. And my comment also included stuff like food. Most current food is modern.
- pierat 3y ago
  I like diamonds. They are pretty. But we also look at the ethics of most diamonds. And aside custom lab grown, child exploitation and murder are the norm. I ethically refuse to pay any money into that system of child exploitation, child murder, and mass violence.
oezi 3y ago
Finding irrationality unacceptable is also irrational.
- Retric 3y ago
  This isn’t some random person off the street, this is someone you’re hopefully spending the majority of your life with. It’s ok to be picky.
  - Exoristos 3y ago
    The point is there's no one who is not irrational. It's foundationally human.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Ignoring differences in magnitude is a mistake. Buying a lottery ticket when the jackpot hits a billion dollars and blowing 100k in Las Vegas are both gambling, but the first is essentially harmless fun while the second is a sign of deeper issues.
      - oezi 3y ago
        Right, but OP didn't focus on magnitudes. He found irrationality unacceptable. So likely he wouldn't marry a lottery player or horoscope reader.
    - serf 3y ago
      there is a difference between people who see in themselves that irrationality and express a desire to change or improve, and those that decide that the world needs to bend towards the irrationality, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes others. A line should be drawn when the irrationality of one causes inarguable and debilitating friction in the relationships of that person. In other words : It's okay to be the person who loves pink, dresses in pink, bathes in pink -- until it disallows that person to find meaningful work/friends/mates/whatever; then it's more than just human irrationality, it's the inability to cope with others and the world at large.
dllthomas 3y ago
> The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Positional goods have real effects, mediated by other people, in a way that astrology doesn't directly. Reducing the role of such things is often good life advice, and pushing back on mined diamonds in particular is morally motivated as well, but I don't think it's right to consider it the same as astrology.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mongol 3y ago
It is no different than all material traditions around Christmas.
chewz 3y ago
> Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. How about spirituality or religion?
- oblio 3y ago
  I'm fairly sure that if someone is strongly against astrology and irrationality, they're probably against religion, too :-)

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Spending money on something expensive but valueless to appease someone is starting what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership on the wrong foot. I'm happy to get my fiancé something expensive, as long as it's valuable. I want her to have something valuable if I fail as a husband, it's more meaningful, it's a real commitment rather than a demonstration of willingness to appease. A woman that can't see that distinction is, to me, a woman that isn't interested in building a future.

wrp 3y ago

I am also against buying expensive stones, but for a different reason. If you view diamonds as status symbols, buying them is not irrational. It's just an approach to life that I don't follow.

saiya-jin 3y ago

I don't have problem with the cost so much (but serious proposals were supposed to be 3x the salary, no? so you lose quite a bit) but rather overall business and how it manipulates people. From poor people destroying their lives in Congo open pit mines to deBeers laughing in your face when selling you small rock which is not that rare for as much money as you are willing to accept. And if you got any form of certificate from then that your specific diamond is not blood diamond, well that paper has less value than used toilet paper, nobody could ever check or enforce that. So people here mentioning how their wives glow when looking at diamonds, well they are looking at shiny human suffering. And if future wife doesn't care enough about that, well you just learned a very interesting personality trait of her, without the need to go through years of relationship.