3 ms·
He's not defending diamonds at all. He's pointing out that you have a relatively weak argument to be standing on if you are going to get outraged over how evil
by res0nat0r 14y ago
He's not defending diamonds at all.
He's pointing out that you have a relatively weak argument to be standing on if you are going to get outraged over how evil diamond are, then continue to happily consume dozens of other "evil" products in your everyday life. The only reason these other "evil" products are being brushed under the table is they are much harder for you to do without day to day than a diamond.
- Helianthus 14y ago>He's not defending diamonds at all. This is utter failure. Do you think I'm not outraged at all the other things we see? It absolutely _infuriates_ me that you expect me _not_ to be outraged at something because I should be _more_ outraged at _everything_. It's _so useless_. It's _so dysfunctional_. Believe me, my outrage is very _active_ and directed towards things outside this conversation. In this conversation, though, it just seems to me that... there's just nothing ambiguous! Diamonds are awful. They're just awful. And if that means I'm firing on a hair-trigger, well... so be it.