but it's the market and the fact that you won't stop the warlords from getting mone
This is queer. Are you saying that by not buying conflict diamonds, I am still giving warlords my money? I'd love to hear the logic behind this line of reasoning.
By buying a diamond, you are more likely to fund an african warlord than you are to cast the deciding vote in a national election.
Do you vote?
If yes, how do you justify spending the time it takes to vote? The odds that your vote will matter are ridicolously slim - even compared to the odds of buying a blood diamond. Its time wasted that has "no" effect on the outcome.
We have the expressive voter theory - you vote because that's the kind of person you want to be, and the size of your influence on the outcome is irrelevant. Of course, if you're willing to overlook your impact on the outcome in favour of taking an action you deem desireable, well, arguing that you can buy diamonds because "you have no impact" becomes a load of convienent tripe.
Maybe you vote because the risk of the side you vote on losing is deemed so horrible that its worth doing everything you can to minimize that risk, even if your own impact on that risk is miniscule. But this would also be problematic, because the odds of you influencing the election results are smaller than the odds of you buying a blood diamond. If this is a neglible risk, a risk that's even smaller than that is even more negligble.
Watching your wife get puppy dog eyes and say, "Aww, it's so pretty!" is not a good reason to buy a rock that was likely dug out of a slave mine. This is some of the really awful part of western hubris & arrogance: the belief that you are so entitled to cosmetic pleasantries & luxury that these things should come to you even at the expense of the rights of other people.
This.
The amount of sacrifice required to not buy diamonds is minimal to the point that those who refuse to engage in it are demonstrably morally bankrupt.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Also, my argument is that buying diamonds or not buying diamonds isn't a moral decision.
Every decision is a moral decision, goose.
Or if not moral, it at least has moral connotations attached to it.
Seriously.
"I'm going to baselessly proclaim that decision-X has no moral qualities or repercussions because (argument missing)."
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe they can proclaim spheres of moral vacuity?
The fuck?!
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP. Most diamonds don't come from warlords and aren't blood diamonds, only a small subset are, and they're already illegal in the US>
Also, my argument is that buying diamonds or not buying diamonds isn't a moral decision.
Every decision is a moral decision, goose.
Or if not moral, it at least has moral connotations attached to it.
Seriously.
"I'm going to baselessly proclaim that decision-X has no moral qualities or repercussions because (argument missing)."
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe they can proclaim spheres of moral vacuity?
The fuck?!
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP. Most diamonds don't come from warlords and aren't blood diamonds, only a small subset are, and they're already illegal in the US>
It doesn't matter! Everything everyone does, ever, has repercussions. Those repercussions can be assessed via a moral framework, which makes them subject to moral praise / blame.
If the particular diamond your purchase did not come from African mines, and the profits do not go to an African warlord, and and and, then it may be morally praiseworthy, as opposed to morally blameworthy. But that doesn't mean its purchase was morally neutral, or immune from moral considerations.
Also, my argument is that buying diamonds or not buying diamonds isn't a moral decision.
Every decision is a moral decision, goose.
Or if not moral, it at least has moral connotations attached to it.
Seriously.
"I'm going to baselessly proclaim that decision-X has no moral qualities or repercussions because (argument missing)."
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe they can proclaim spheres of moral vacuity?
The fuck?!
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP. Most diamonds don't come from warlords and aren't blood diamonds, only a small subset are, and they're already illegal in the US>
It doesn't matter! Everything everyone does, ever, has repercussions. Those repercussions can be assessed via a moral framework, which makes them subject to moral praise / blame.
If the particular diamond your purchase did not come from African mines, and the profits do not go to an African warlord, and and and, then it may be morally praiseworthy, as opposed to morally blameworthy. But that doesn't mean its purchase was morally neutral, or immune from moral considerations.
Fucking fuck on a fuckstick.
I agree, just as much as the device you used to type that message, the clothes on your back, and whatever food you chose to ate.. It's so relative, and similar on all of these, that the relation of diamonds as the only source of warlords is as much as the pearl manufacturing facilities off Ghana and near Madagascar can be tied, and again, if it wasn't diamond mining it'd be mining another substance.. There are more options that have less innocent casualties than a diamond boycott, and would have more of an effect on the state of the warlords.. I understand how much you hate Joseph Kony, I remember that zeitgeist flare up vaguely too and I don't even facebook.. It's also hyperbole and grossly over exaggerated and asking for a boycott on other high end consumer goods or substances would have a much higher result in demanding change on a plethora of issues, and singling out diamonds as your cause de jure is outta laziness and true desire to make a sacrifice for a moral stand. The average modernly sourced diamond is far less likely to be a blood diamond, then that hamburger you ate was to be slaughtered inhumanely.
+1
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Read about Antwerp and all diamond polishing markets ever, and you'll see the problem with this statement.. I don't think Canadian diamonds lack any opportunity to launder illicit ones, and as for synthetics, the lack of a polishing soft weight makes it harder, but I'm sure blood diamonds could be sold to laymen without spectrographs or knowing what 'too perfect' would look like at a discount because of a flaw occurring in the cooking process.. Again, out of my range, but again, if it proves that their diamonds don't have an end destination, there is a plethora of other avenues for the despots to exploit their people.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Read about Antwerp and all diamond polishing markets ever, and you'll see the problem with this statement.. I don't think Canadian diamonds lack any opportunity to launder illicit ones, and as for synthetics, the lack of a polishing soft weight makes it harder, but I'm sure blood diamonds could be sold to laymen without spectrographs or knowing what 'too perfect' would look like at a discount because of a flaw occurring in the cooking process.. Again, out of my range, but again, if it proves that their diamonds don't have an end destination, there is a plethora of other avenues for the despots to exploit their people.
Wow. You make it sound like we shouldn't buy diamonds at all, as the risk is greater than the reward.
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Read about Antwerp and all diamond polishing markets ever, and you'll see the problem with this statement.. I don't think Canadian diamonds lack any opportunity to launder illicit ones, and as for synthetics, the lack of a polishing soft weight makes it harder, but I'm sure blood diamonds could be sold to laymen without spectrographs or knowing what 'too perfect' would look like at a discount because of a flaw occurring in the cooking process.. Again, out of my range, but again, if it proves that their diamonds don't have an end destination, there is a plethora of other avenues for the despots to exploit their people.
Wow. You make it sound like we shouldn't buy diamonds at all, as the risk is greater than the reward.
Oh wait, it kinda is.
No because buying diamonds has no effect on the African despots exploitation of their people.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Read about Antwerp and all diamond polishing markets ever, and you'll see the problem with this statement.. I don't think Canadian diamonds lack any opportunity to launder illicit ones, and as for synthetics, the lack of a polishing soft weight makes it harder, but I'm sure blood diamonds could be sold to laymen without spectrographs or knowing what 'too perfect' would look like at a discount because of a flaw occurring in the cooking process.. Again, out of my range, but again, if it proves that their diamonds don't have an end destination, there is a plethora of other avenues for the despots to exploit their people.
Wow. You make it sound like we shouldn't buy diamonds at all, as the risk is greater than the reward.
Oh wait, it kinda is.
No because buying diamonds has no effect on the African despots exploitation of their people.
O_o
Well, good to see you're still trying to mount the "collective action problems don't exist" hurdle. Let me know when you get both legs over it.
(1) as far as material optimization of diamonds and your pocketbook goes, the "rational" thing is not to just buy or sell whatever; it is to just buy or sell whatever and then claim to refuse to buy and sell conflict diamonds. Expressiveness costs your bank balance nothing.
(1)(a) and if the deception seems objectionable to yourself, then you have tacitly acknowledged a non-material objective that may wish to consider in your rational evaluation;
(2) as far as charitably optimizing over what possible states of the world you can influence goes, a rational actor should acknowledge that most people are not common-knowledge rational actors with regards to either their own pocketbooks or other people's welfare. This is where advocacy of collective action gains its teeth.
(3) the role of De Beers in all this is rather complicated and actually quite interesting - for one thing, its monopoly on diamond sources has been greatly compromised, and that's just mined diamonds, not synthetics. It is around that time that De Beers stopped fighting conflict-diamond regulation and started quietly supporting it. Can you guess why?
(4) as far as conflict diamonds themselves go: it's not actually self-evident that imperfectly suppressing the sale of conflict diamonds necessarily reduces the attractiveness of waging wars over diamonds, or enslaving people to mine diamonds; the straightforward problem being that limiting supply increases the price, other things being equal, and imperfect regulation might not uniformly increase risks enough to offset the increased appeal of diamond exports (the usual context in which this dynamic is highlighted is the illicit drug trade). I will point out that the conventional wisdom is that the Kimberley process works, of course.
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Read about Antwerp and all diamond polishing markets ever, and you'll see the problem with this statement.. I don't think Canadian diamonds lack any opportunity to launder illicit ones, and as for synthetics, the lack of a polishing soft weight makes it harder, but I'm sure blood diamonds could be sold to laymen without spectrographs or knowing what 'too perfect' would look like at a discount because of a flaw occurring in the cooking process.. Again, out of my range, but again, if it proves that their diamonds don't have an end destination, there is a plethora of other avenues for the despots to exploit their people.
Wow. You make it sound like we shouldn't buy diamonds at all, as the risk is greater than the reward.
Oh wait, it kinda is.
No because buying diamonds has no effect on the African despots exploitation of their people.
O_o
Well, good to see you're still trying to mount the "collective action problems don't exist" hurdle. Let me know when you get both legs over it.
That's not actualy my battle, and again, I'm the one that's brought up the only applicable boycott for social change that has occured in the region, and cited it as an example for what should be done; and again, your boycott has no effect on the problem you're citing as the reason for it. Diamonds are just what they use out of conveniance, and if it wasn't diamonds, it'd be whatever othe resource they could get the largest return for their exploitation. Again, I would be in favor of the tax to make the 100% sourced stones more competitive in pricing, but that's a different argument for someone who can read my posts from more than the laast two hours in this thread on the subject.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Also, my argument is that buying diamonds or not buying diamonds isn't a moral decision.
Every decision is a moral decision, goose.
Or if not moral, it at least has moral connotations attached to it.
Seriously.
"I'm going to baselessly proclaim that decision-X has no moral qualities or repercussions because (argument missing)."
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe they can proclaim spheres of moral vacuity?
The fuck?!
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP. Most diamonds don't come from warlords and aren't blood diamonds, only a small subset are, and they're already illegal in the US>
It doesn't matter! Everything everyone does, ever, has repercussions. Those repercussions can be assessed via a moral framework, which makes them subject to moral praise / blame.
If the particular diamond your purchase did not come from African mines, and the profits do not go to an African warlord, and and and, then it may be morally praiseworthy, as opposed to morally blameworthy. But that doesn't mean its purchase was morally neutral, or immune from moral considerations.
Fucking fuck on a fuckstick.
Sadly no.
By purchasing diamonds you are participating in a market.
That market gives blood diamonds value.
It is true that in some other theoretical world, one where diamonds have no value,
African despots are torturing their populations for other irrationally valued commercially reproducible deposits.
But you don't live in anyone of those theoretical worlds, just sadly this one.
---
Mama loves her little blue boxes, and daddy's got to keep her happy so what are you gonna do?
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Diamonds are just what they use out of conveniance, and if it wasn't diamonds, it'd be whatever othe resource they could get the largest return for their exploitation.
Also, my argument is that buying diamonds or not buying diamonds isn't a moral decision.
Every decision is a moral decision, goose.
Or if not moral, it at least has moral connotations attached to it.
Seriously.
"I'm going to baselessly proclaim that decision-X has no moral qualities or repercussions because (argument missing)."
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe they can proclaim spheres of moral vacuity?
The fuck?!
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP. Most diamonds don't come from warlords and aren't blood diamonds, only a small subset are, and they're already illegal in the US>
It doesn't matter! Everything everyone does, ever, has repercussions. Those repercussions can be assessed via a moral framework, which makes them subject to moral praise / blame.
If the particular diamond your purchase did not come from African mines, and the profits do not go to an African warlord, and and and, then it may be morally praiseworthy, as opposed to morally blameworthy. But that doesn't mean its purchase was morally neutral, or immune from moral considerations.
Fucking fuck on a fuckstick.
I agree, just as much as the device you used to type that message, the clothes on your back, and whatever food you chose to ate.. It's so relative, and similar on all of these, that the relation of diamonds as the only source of warlords is as much as the pearl manufacturing facilities off Ghana and near Madagascar can be tied, and again, if it wasn't diamond mining it'd be mining another substance.. There are more options that have less innocent casualties than a diamond boycott, and would have more of an effect on the state of the warlords.. I understand how much you hate Joseph Kony, I remember that zeitgeist flare up vaguely too and I don't even facebook.. It's also hyperbole and grossly over exaggerated and asking for a boycott on other high end consumer goods or substances would have a much higher result in demanding change on a plethora of issues, and singling out diamonds as your cause de jure is outta laziness and true desire to make a sacrifice for a moral stand. The average modernly sourced diamond is far less likely to be a blood diamond, then that hamburger you ate was to be slaughtered inhumanely.
I couldn't discern what you were saying, given your lack of basic punctuation and grammar.
Diamonds are just what they use out of conveniance, and if it wasn't diamonds, it'd be whatever othe resource they could get the largest return for their exploitation.
Is your argument seriously "We should continue to buy diamonds without a care because it might inconvenience despots and they might have to switch to something else."
Because, what the fuck. Thats the lamest, whiniest, flimsiest reasoning for not caring. The 'its tooooo haaaaaaarrrrd' excuse is something you rarely hear outside of elementary school. Because heavens to betsy, we wouldn't want to inconvenience them. Its not like thats the point.
Holy shit. I go to bed and come back to people denying collective action problems actually exist and that ethical consumerism has no effect on the way products are provided?
What the fucking fuck.
If you give money to a warlord, you are helping that warlord maintain their power.
This is fact.
Yes there are many other products that face similar issues. That does not change the above. It is still fact.
That the warlord might change their product to something else also does not change that giving the warlord money helps keep them in power.
Now no one said you can't do this. We all do it to some degree. But fortunately no one claimed to be perfect either. If you're okay with supporting suffering for a shiny stone, by all means go ahead. I made the same decision buying my phone, though without the knowledge of knowing what I was supporting. In the future I'll be taking better care with this purchase. I know my shoes were probably produced in a sweat shop but I accept that because, quite simply, I especially wanted them. But should someone point out that my shoes resulted in someone's suffering I'm not going to pretend they didn't or that market forces don't exist. I'll simply agree and move on with my life.
Finally, an organized boycott is not necessary to alter market practices. It's great if it does occurr because it's way more efficient, but that's often not the case. However, farmer's Markets, vegetarian options, Papa John's stock plummeting, free trade, organic options, food animals being raised humanely, fair labor clothing options, etc did not occurr on the scale they currently do because of organized boycotts. They occurred because of market reactions to consumer choices. Claiming individuals have no effect on the world is an excuse used by people who don't want to feel any responsibility for the decisions they make. I applies to consumerism just as much as it does to charity, littering, volunteering, voting, etc. None of those are significantly altered by any one person but they are altered, either for the better or the worse.
For those of so very concerned that their spouses will not forgive them if they are not presented with possible conflict diamonds, try this:
ASK
Something like "Hello love of my life, today I would like to ask your opinion on where we should get our gems from. Did you know that some diamonds help despicable regimes, while others do not? Some of these are mined in Canada, while others are grown in a lab. There are also other gems which very nearly resemble diamonds, which also lack this risk. The riskless gems are not as easy to find in jewelry, so there are fewer options, but the option exists. Would you prefer that we kept getting the usual diamonds, which carry the risk of helping despicable regimes, but with more variety, or would you like to try the fewer but non-risky variety from now on?"
See, I get caught up on the cultural pressure of, "It should be a surprise when you propose!" which means that I want to limit ring discussion to a minimum. I've discerned that when it comes to shiny rocks, "clear" is the best colour, but I feel weird asking any further because of the aforesaid expectation of surprise.
I'm pretty sure that the lack of discussion expected in these types of transaction is another marketing ploy, as the thought process becomes, "I don't know exactly what I should buy, so I'll play it safe and go for what the nice man with the tiny magnifying glass and the vested interest in me spending loads of money thinks."
For those of so very concerned that their spouses will not forgive them if they are not presented with possible conflict diamonds, try this:
ASK
Something like "Hello love of my life, today I would like to ask your opinion on where we should get our gems from. Did you know that some diamonds help despicable regimes, while others do not? Some of these are mined in Canada, while others are grown in a lab. There are also other gems which very nearly resemble diamonds, which also lack this risk. The riskless gems are not as easy to find in jewelry, so there are fewer options, but the option exists. Would you prefer that we kept getting the usual diamonds, which carry the risk of helping despicable regimes, but with more variety, or would you like to try the fewer but non-risky variety from now on?"
See, I get caught up on the cultural pressure of, "It should be a surprise when you propose!" which means that I want to limit ring discussion to a minimum. I've discerned that when it comes to shiny rocks, "clear" is the best colour, but I feel weird asking any further because of the aforesaid expectation of surprise.
I'm pretty sure that the lack of discussion expected in these types of transaction is another marketing ploy, as the thought process becomes, "I don't know exactly what I should buy, so I'll play it safe and go for what the nice man with the tiny magnifying glass and the vested interest in me spending loads of money thinks."
Dude trust me: Ask her. You don't have to do it too heavy handedly since presumely you're both at the point where you've discussed marriage someday. Just ask her if you were to marry what she'd prefer, if she'd like something different, care about the source, etc.
Dovetail it in to a general discussion of marriage and you should be fine.
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
When I started talking about the rock, this was well before an engagement was a concrete thing. I just tossed out, "Hey, I've been reading about the diamond industry. That's some shady shit. I think I would prefer not to buy a new diamond because of all the baggage that comes with." This led to a short chat on what I'd read about the diamond industry, and gave an opening for her to, if she wanted to, say, "I'd still like a traditional diamond." Instead she said (as I'd figured), "That makes sense. The specific ideal of the diamond isn't that important to me anyway."
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
By buying a diamond, you are more likely to fund an african warlord than you are to cast the deciding vote in a national election.
Do you vote?
If yes, how do you justify spending the time it takes to vote? The odds that your vote will matter are ridicolously slim - even compared to the odds of buying a blood diamond. Its time wasted that has "no" effect on the outcome.
We have the expressive voter theory - you vote because that's the kind of person you want to be, and the size of your influence on the outcome is irrelevant. Of course, if you're willing to overlook your impact on the outcome in favour of taking an action you deem desireable, well, arguing that you can buy diamonds because "you have no impact" becomes a load of convienent tripe.
Maybe you vote because the risk of the side you vote on losing is deemed so horrible that its worth doing everything you can to minimize that risk, even if your own impact on that risk is miniscule. But this would also be problematic, because the odds of you influencing the election results are smaller than the odds of you buying a blood diamond. If this is a neglible risk, a risk that's even smaller than that is even more negligble.
So. Do you vote?
Historically, I have not. This election I was convinced by theses boards to do so, not because it was rational (it was not) but because I realized that deliberately not voting because other people would vote was unfair. I do not think it is similarly unfair to let other people be the non-diamond buyers because (1) I do not think that is how change will happen ( I think it will take governed action and the elimination of the warlords) and (2) the cost of so constraining my purchases is considerably greater than the time outlay to vote.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
(1) as far as material optimization of diamonds and your pocketbook goes, the "rational" thing is not to just buy or sell whatever; it is to just buy or sell whatever and then claim to refuse to buy and sell conflict diamonds. Expressiveness costs your bank balance nothing.
(1)(a) and if the deception seems objectionable to yourself, then you have tacitly acknowledged a non-material objective that may wish to consider in your rational evaluation;
(2) as far as charitably optimizing over what possible states of the world you can influence goes, a rational actor should acknowledge that most people are not common-knowledge rational actors with regards to either their own pocketbooks or other people's welfare. This is where advocacy of collective action gains its teeth.
(3) the role of De Beers in all this is rather complicated and actually quite interesting - for one thing, its monopoly on diamond sources has been greatly compromised, and that's just mined diamonds, not synthetics. It is around that time that De Beers stopped fighting conflict-diamond regulation and started quietly supporting it. Can you guess why?
(4) as far as conflict diamonds themselves go: it's not actually self-evident that imperfectly suppressing the sale of conflict diamonds necessarily reduces the attractiveness of waging wars over diamonds, or enslaving people to mine diamonds; the straightforward problem being that limiting supply increases the price, other things being equal, and imperfect regulation might not uniformly increase risks enough to offset the increased appeal of diamond exports (the usual context in which this dynamic is highlighted is the illicit drug trade). I will point out that the conventional wisdom is that the Kimberley process works, of course.
As to 1(a), I would not affirmatively lie and say I only buy Kimberley process stones, but noone ever asks, so it simply does not come up. I agree that (1) is almost always the optimal decision from a rational basis, but I am not a purely rational actor, as I greatly value honesty in most cases.
(2) is just an explanation for why demagogues are successful, correct? Not a reason to act irrationally myself. . .
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
I have this awesome idea, which is called: fuck those people (not in the kinky way).
If the diamond trade and it's consequences are important to you, then either you relate this fact to others and try to impress your logic on them (and feel accomplished in doing so and eventually gain an understanding centered on the idea that "people" understand you to generally be a moral person trying to do the right thing) or I'm not really sure why you'd care what they think at all.
I mean the general "people" judging you has a big advantage really because if it's outlandish that you didn't buy a diamond then thanks to the magic of humans being awful at resisting PR you'll still be popular because everyone will always be like "oh he's the guy who got a sapphire on his engagement ring. Can you believe she said yes?" rather then "who is that guy?"
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
When I started talking about the rock, this was well before an engagement was a concrete thing. I just tossed out, "Hey, I've been reading about the diamond industry. That's some shady shit. I think I would prefer not to buy a new diamond because of all the baggage that comes with." This led to a short chat on what I'd read about the diamond industry, and gave an opening for her to, if she wanted to, say, "I'd still like a traditional diamond." Instead she said (as I'd figured), "That makes sense. The specific ideal of the diamond isn't that important to me anyway."
But don't you worry at all that you didn't really leave her the opening. You basically say "I think it's wrong to buy a diamond because of morals" and I think that hardly leaves a true opening to say "I get that buy I really want the diamond I always imagined from when I was a little girl."
EDIT: The problem is really that there's a very limited rational argument for blowing thousands of dollars on a gram or two of non-functional carbon in the first place. When you tie that into indisputable moral issues, what argument can there be? "I need a gram of carbon allotrope (as opposed to some aluminium oxide) on my finger so badly that I'm willing to let child slaves be mutilated and die to provide it for me!".
And that's apart from the "reality" that there's a >99% chance that a newly wedded couple will have numerous far more utilitarian uses for a few thousand bucks than some jewellry in the first place.
V1m on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
That's fine, but I don't think we can just expect people to turn a happy moment like an engagement into an obligation to educate everyone they know on the diamond trade.
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
That's fine, but I don't think we can just expect people to turn a happy moment like an engagement into an obligation to educate everyone they know on the diamond trade.
If you don't know details like this before getting engaged, I would argue the relationship still has some work it needs.
In fact honestly if the proposal is rejected because "not diamond" then do you really want to marry the person at all, seeing as how apparently money has now entered - in a very significant way - into the "contract"?
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
That's fine, but I don't think we can just expect people to turn a happy moment like an engagement into an obligation to educate everyone they know on the diamond trade.
I guess some of us value the comfort of comformity than others. I wouldn't give two shits about someone else's opinion of my choice of engagement ring in the first place.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
When I started talking about the rock, this was well before an engagement was a concrete thing. I just tossed out, "Hey, I've been reading about the diamond industry. That's some shady shit. I think I would prefer not to buy a new diamond because of all the baggage that comes with." This led to a short chat on what I'd read about the diamond industry, and gave an opening for her to, if she wanted to, say, "I'd still like a traditional diamond." Instead she said (as I'd figured), "That makes sense. The specific ideal of the diamond isn't that important to me anyway."
But don't you worry at all that you didn't really leave her the opening. You basically say "I think it's wrong to buy a diamond because of morals" and I think that hardly leaves a true opening to say "I get that buy I really want the diamond I always imagined from when I was a little girl."
No one that shallow is worth marrying if you feel strongly about the diamond thing.
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
That's fine, but I don't think we can just expect people to turn a happy moment like an engagement into an obligation to educate everyone they know on the diamond trade.
You don't have to and no one does this anyway because it's just a ridiculous strawman as it is. The important part is that you are free to do as you please and accept that people are going to judge you instead for buying blood diamonds.
Deal.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
EDIT: The problem is really that there's a very limited rational argument for blowing thousands of dollars on a gram or two of non-functional carbon in the first place. When you tie that into indisputable moral issues, what argument can there be? "I need a gram of carbon allotrope (as opposed to some aluminium oxide) on my finger so badly that I'm willing to let child slaves be mutilated and die to provide it for me!".
And that's apart from the "reality" that there's a >99% chance that a newly wedded couple will have numerous far more utilitarian uses for a few thousand bucks than some jewellry in the first place.
And now the smugness returns. Just because you don't like the tradition doesn't mean it is wrong or stupid.
The takeaway I have from this topic is that I am generally not buying Nintendo, HTC or Samsung devices anymore. These products are much worse than diamonds IMO because while conflict diamonds are illegal in America, and so you can trust in those laws to mitigate risk, electronics with conflict minerals are fully legal here. Also, Nintendo are the biggest monsters of all, because they literally so NOTHING to try and track the source of their materials.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
That's fine, but I don't think we can just expect people to turn a happy moment like an engagement into an obligation to educate everyone they know on the diamond trade.
If you don't know details like this before getting engaged, I would argue the relationship still has some work it needs.
In fact honestly if the proposal is rejected because "not diamond" then do you really want to marry the person at all, seeing as how apparently money has now entered - in a very significant way - into the "contract"?
Who ever said anything about rejected proposals? The more likely scenario is she says yes but is secretly disappointed that she will never have the ring she seemed of as a little girl.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
It's odd - we've discussed kids (number and names), where we want to live, the type of house - almost every aspect of a stereotypical married life, except the actual getting married part.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
Guess what, everybody judges everybody for something.
If you do buy a diamond, different people will judge you for it, for the very reasons stated in this thread.
Posts
This is queer. Are you saying that by not buying conflict diamonds, I am still giving warlords my money? I'd love to hear the logic behind this line of reasoning.
Do you vote?
If yes, how do you justify spending the time it takes to vote? The odds that your vote will matter are ridicolously slim - even compared to the odds of buying a blood diamond. Its time wasted that has "no" effect on the outcome.
We have the expressive voter theory - you vote because that's the kind of person you want to be, and the size of your influence on the outcome is irrelevant. Of course, if you're willing to overlook your impact on the outcome in favour of taking an action you deem desireable, well, arguing that you can buy diamonds because "you have no impact" becomes a load of convienent tripe.
Maybe you vote because the risk of the side you vote on losing is deemed so horrible that its worth doing everything you can to minimize that risk, even if your own impact on that risk is miniscule. But this would also be problematic, because the odds of you influencing the election results are smaller than the odds of you buying a blood diamond. If this is a neglible risk, a risk that's even smaller than that is even more negligble.
So. Do you vote?
Every decision is a moral decision, goose.
This.
The amount of sacrifice required to not buy diamonds is minimal to the point that those who refuse to engage in it are demonstrably morally bankrupt.
Or if not moral, it at least has moral connotations attached to it.
Seriously.
"I'm going to baselessly proclaim that decision-X has no moral qualities or repercussions because (argument missing)."
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe they can proclaim spheres of moral vacuity?
The fuck?!
Because you are the one who hasn't linked to a shred of information, and I've been referencing things directly from the OP. Most diamonds don't come from warlords and aren't blood diamonds, only a small subset are, and they're already illegal in the US>
It doesn't matter! Everything everyone does, ever, has repercussions. Those repercussions can be assessed via a moral framework, which makes them subject to moral praise / blame.
If the particular diamond your purchase did not come from African mines, and the profits do not go to an African warlord, and and and, then it may be morally praiseworthy, as opposed to morally blameworthy. But that doesn't mean its purchase was morally neutral, or immune from moral considerations.
Fucking fuck on a fuckstick.
I agree, just as much as the device you used to type that message, the clothes on your back, and whatever food you chose to ate.. It's so relative, and similar on all of these, that the relation of diamonds as the only source of warlords is as much as the pearl manufacturing facilities off Ghana and near Madagascar can be tied, and again, if it wasn't diamond mining it'd be mining another substance.. There are more options that have less innocent casualties than a diamond boycott, and would have more of an effect on the state of the warlords.. I understand how much you hate Joseph Kony, I remember that zeitgeist flare up vaguely too and I don't even facebook.. It's also hyperbole and grossly over exaggerated and asking for a boycott on other high end consumer goods or substances would have a much higher result in demanding change on a plethora of issues, and singling out diamonds as your cause de jure is outta laziness and true desire to make a sacrifice for a moral stand. The average modernly sourced diamond is far less likely to be a blood diamond, then that hamburger you ate was to be slaughtered inhumanely.
Really? Because I'm looking at the link in the OP, and it says that all diamonds coming from Surat are suspect. The only clean ones appear to be (surprise suprise!) Canadian diamonds and synthetic diamonds.
Read about Antwerp and all diamond polishing markets ever, and you'll see the problem with this statement.. I don't think Canadian diamonds lack any opportunity to launder illicit ones, and as for synthetics, the lack of a polishing soft weight makes it harder, but I'm sure blood diamonds could be sold to laymen without spectrographs or knowing what 'too perfect' would look like at a discount because of a flaw occurring in the cooking process.. Again, out of my range, but again, if it proves that their diamonds don't have an end destination, there is a plethora of other avenues for the despots to exploit their people.
Wow. You make it sound like we shouldn't buy diamonds at all, as the risk is greater than the reward.
Oh wait, it kinda is.
No because buying diamonds has no effect on the African despots exploitation of their people.
O_o
Well, good to see you're still trying to mount the "collective action problems don't exist" hurdle. Let me know when you get both legs over it.
(1) as far as material optimization of diamonds and your pocketbook goes, the "rational" thing is not to just buy or sell whatever; it is to just buy or sell whatever and then claim to refuse to buy and sell conflict diamonds. Expressiveness costs your bank balance nothing.
(1)(a) and if the deception seems objectionable to yourself, then you have tacitly acknowledged a non-material objective that may wish to consider in your rational evaluation;
(2) as far as charitably optimizing over what possible states of the world you can influence goes, a rational actor should acknowledge that most people are not common-knowledge rational actors with regards to either their own pocketbooks or other people's welfare. This is where advocacy of collective action gains its teeth.
(3) the role of De Beers in all this is rather complicated and actually quite interesting - for one thing, its monopoly on diamond sources has been greatly compromised, and that's just mined diamonds, not synthetics. It is around that time that De Beers stopped fighting conflict-diamond regulation and started quietly supporting it. Can you guess why?
(4) as far as conflict diamonds themselves go: it's not actually self-evident that imperfectly suppressing the sale of conflict diamonds necessarily reduces the attractiveness of waging wars over diamonds, or enslaving people to mine diamonds; the straightforward problem being that limiting supply increases the price, other things being equal, and imperfect regulation might not uniformly increase risks enough to offset the increased appeal of diamond exports (the usual context in which this dynamic is highlighted is the illicit drug trade). I will point out that the conventional wisdom is that the Kimberley process works, of course.
That's not actualy my battle, and again, I'm the one that's brought up the only applicable boycott for social change that has occured in the region, and cited it as an example for what should be done; and again, your boycott has no effect on the problem you're citing as the reason for it. Diamonds are just what they use out of conveniance, and if it wasn't diamonds, it'd be whatever othe resource they could get the largest return for their exploitation. Again, I would be in favor of the tax to make the 100% sourced stones more competitive in pricing, but that's a different argument for someone who can read my posts from more than the laast two hours in this thread on the subject.
Sadly no.
By purchasing diamonds you are participating in a market.
That market gives blood diamonds value.
It is true that in some other theoretical world, one where diamonds have no value,
African despots are torturing their populations for other irrationally valued commercially reproducible deposits.
But you don't live in anyone of those theoretical worlds, just sadly this one.
---
Mama loves her little blue boxes, and daddy's got to keep her happy so what are you gonna do?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Then when they switch over, we boycott that, too.
I couldn't discern what you were saying, given your lack of basic punctuation and grammar.
So I'll just focus on the "I agree".
Is your argument seriously "We should continue to buy diamonds without a care because it might inconvenience despots and they might have to switch to something else."
Because, what the fuck. Thats the lamest, whiniest, flimsiest reasoning for not caring. The 'its tooooo haaaaaaarrrrd' excuse is something you rarely hear outside of elementary school. Because heavens to betsy, we wouldn't want to inconvenience them. Its not like thats the point.
What the fucking fuck.
If you give money to a warlord, you are helping that warlord maintain their power.
This is fact.
Yes there are many other products that face similar issues. That does not change the above. It is still fact.
That the warlord might change their product to something else also does not change that giving the warlord money helps keep them in power.
Now no one said you can't do this. We all do it to some degree. But fortunately no one claimed to be perfect either. If you're okay with supporting suffering for a shiny stone, by all means go ahead. I made the same decision buying my phone, though without the knowledge of knowing what I was supporting. In the future I'll be taking better care with this purchase. I know my shoes were probably produced in a sweat shop but I accept that because, quite simply, I especially wanted them. But should someone point out that my shoes resulted in someone's suffering I'm not going to pretend they didn't or that market forces don't exist. I'll simply agree and move on with my life.
Finally, an organized boycott is not necessary to alter market practices. It's great if it does occurr because it's way more efficient, but that's often not the case. However, farmer's Markets, vegetarian options, Papa John's stock plummeting, free trade, organic options, food animals being raised humanely, fair labor clothing options, etc did not occurr on the scale they currently do because of organized boycotts. They occurred because of market reactions to consumer choices. Claiming individuals have no effect on the world is an excuse used by people who don't want to feel any responsibility for the decisions they make. I applies to consumerism just as much as it does to charity, littering, volunteering, voting, etc. None of those are significantly altered by any one person but they are altered, either for the better or the worse.
See, I get caught up on the cultural pressure of, "It should be a surprise when you propose!" which means that I want to limit ring discussion to a minimum. I've discerned that when it comes to shiny rocks, "clear" is the best colour, but I feel weird asking any further because of the aforesaid expectation of surprise.
I'm pretty sure that the lack of discussion expected in these types of transaction is another marketing ploy, as the thought process becomes, "I don't know exactly what I should buy, so I'll play it safe and go for what the nice man with the tiny magnifying glass and the vested interest in me spending loads of money thinks."
Dude trust me: Ask her. You don't have to do it too heavy handedly since presumely you're both at the point where you've discussed marriage someday. Just ask her if you were to marry what she'd prefer, if she'd like something different, care about the source, etc.
Dovetail it in to a general discussion of marriage and you should be fine.
I also worry that the answer would be, "Don't spend too much and save for a house deposit", because I'm a tool of the marketing machine which says that you should spend according to your salary and not on what she wants. It's not like I consciously do that in any other purchase for her - the last jewellery purchase for her was a pair of Assassin's Creed earrings made of some kind of clear acrylic, and she loved them because they represented one of her famous game franchises.
Stupid social pressure...
If you buy her something other than a diamond, you will have to accept that people will quietly judge you both. It sucks, but that us the reality.
The only way to change that "reality" is to openly reject it.
Historically, I have not. This election I was convinced by theses boards to do so, not because it was rational (it was not) but because I realized that deliberately not voting because other people would vote was unfair. I do not think it is similarly unfair to let other people be the non-diamond buyers because (1) I do not think that is how change will happen ( I think it will take governed action and the elimination of the warlords) and (2) the cost of so constraining my purchases is considerably greater than the time outlay to vote.
As to 1(a), I would not affirmatively lie and say I only buy Kimberley process stones, but noone ever asks, so it simply does not come up. I agree that (1) is almost always the optimal decision from a rational basis, but I am not a purely rational actor, as I greatly value honesty in most cases.
(2) is just an explanation for why demagogues are successful, correct? Not a reason to act irrationally myself. . .
I have this awesome idea, which is called: fuck those people (not in the kinky way).
If the diamond trade and it's consequences are important to you, then either you relate this fact to others and try to impress your logic on them (and feel accomplished in doing so and eventually gain an understanding centered on the idea that "people" understand you to generally be a moral person trying to do the right thing) or I'm not really sure why you'd care what they think at all.
I mean the general "people" judging you has a big advantage really because if it's outlandish that you didn't buy a diamond then thanks to the magic of humans being awful at resisting PR you'll still be popular because everyone will always be like "oh he's the guy who got a sapphire on his engagement ring. Can you believe she said yes?" rather then "who is that guy?"
But don't you worry at all that you didn't really leave her the opening. You basically say "I think it's wrong to buy a diamond because of morals" and I think that hardly leaves a true opening to say "I get that buy I really want the diamond I always imagined from when I was a little girl."
EDIT: The problem is really that there's a very limited rational argument for blowing thousands of dollars on a gram or two of non-functional carbon in the first place. When you tie that into indisputable moral issues, what argument can there be? "I need a gram of carbon allotrope (as opposed to some aluminium oxide) on my finger so badly that I'm willing to let child slaves be mutilated and die to provide it for me!".
And that's apart from the "reality" that there's a >99% chance that a newly wedded couple will have numerous far more utilitarian uses for a few thousand bucks than some jewellry in the first place.
That's fine, but I don't think we can just expect people to turn a happy moment like an engagement into an obligation to educate everyone they know on the diamond trade.
If you don't know details like this before getting engaged, I would argue the relationship still has some work it needs.
In fact honestly if the proposal is rejected because "not diamond" then do you really want to marry the person at all, seeing as how apparently money has now entered - in a very significant way - into the "contract"?
I guess some of us value the comfort of comformity than others. I wouldn't give two shits about someone else's opinion of my choice of engagement ring in the first place.
No one that shallow is worth marrying if you feel strongly about the diamond thing.
You don't have to and no one does this anyway because it's just a ridiculous strawman as it is. The important part is that you are free to do as you please and accept that people are going to judge you instead for buying blood diamonds.
Deal.
And now the smugness returns. Just because you don't like the tradition doesn't mean it is wrong or stupid.
The takeaway I have from this topic is that I am generally not buying Nintendo, HTC or Samsung devices anymore. These products are much worse than diamonds IMO because while conflict diamonds are illegal in America, and so you can trust in those laws to mitigate risk, electronics with conflict minerals are fully legal here. Also, Nintendo are the biggest monsters of all, because they literally so NOTHING to try and track the source of their materials.
Who ever said anything about rejected proposals? The more likely scenario is she says yes but is secretly disappointed that she will never have the ring she seemed of as a little girl.
Guess what, everybody judges everybody for something.
If you do buy a diamond, different people will judge you for it, for the very reasons stated in this thread.