f13.net

So the literary love thread diverged into another topic that I found more interesting, but equally as useless.  So I'm posing a question and am curious to see who answers as what.  You needn't justify your answer, but can if you feel like you must.



If you had ridiculous amounts of money to spend on cars, booze and women, would you spend ridiculous amounts of money on cars, booze and women?




I wouldn't.  I don't care about cars, I might treat myself to some fancy booze every once in a while but I'm hardly a drinker, and women to whom money appeals don't appeal to me and I don't do the casual thing.

No. I'd start the Long Range foundation (http://www.long-range-foundation.com/), like in the Heinlein book "Time for the stars".

The problem is that it would require a staggering amount of money. Like, Gates foundation or Google money.

Those wouldn't be my top priorities to spend money on (okay, maybe some good booze and one really nice eco-friendly car), but throw enough money at me and who knows what I'd do after I'd bought everything else.

I'd probably buy an island.

You could buy an island right now if you really wanted to.  If you don't care about location or utilities they're crazy cheap.

There was a brief period during which I considered buying an island to live on, until I realized that I wouldn't really like living on an island, even if it was a nice one, much less one where I'd have to purify my own drinking water.

Yes.

Cars, yes. Just one in particular though. Women? No. In fact, they're the ones who will buy my drinks too.  :-P

Yeah, there's really only one car I'd spend more than 25k on and that's a black Ferrari Maranello.

I spend money on my cars all the time.  But >25k for one?  I bought one new car once and it was all of $17k (and the biggest mistake ever).  The most I've spent before that was $3500 on one.

I don't drink.

I can't get women.

So I probably don't fit the bill as the right one to answer this... even if I had ridiculous amounts, I'd still only buy maybe one or two cars (for cheap) and that's it.

67 stingray conv for me...  With a z06, much like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQA3m4ZdO0k&feature=related).  :-) I wouldn't hit 100k with it though, so maybe it doesn't qualify as "extreme".

Booze - you better believe it.
Cars - Meh, I'd like a nice Cadillac, but nothing insane.
Women - I'll never throw money at women, period. I grew up in a place built around that principle and it still sickens me.

Booze - No, I didn't drink for the longest time, now I drink maybe once every 2-3 months and only 1-2 drinks when I do.
Cars - No, I don't even own a car now because I walk or catch the train everywhere.
Women - No.

Despite my defence of big spending I don't spend big. I have a TV ($1k) and an Xbox360, then everything else I own personally costs under or near $200 (I have a bunch of work stuff though like my laptop, various software, etc). Right now I'm saving for a house. Almost all of my money gets channeled right into various funds before I even see it for this purpose and that's the only purchase I really care about. I want a nice house. If I had lots and lots of money I'd be more inclined to use it for influence/power to change certain things than anything else.

if i had that much i'd probably quit my job. Make sure my parents get enough to retire happily, then spend the remainder setting up a nice gaming centre for a group of friends to have fun on weekends.

I don't like driving unless i have to. I don't drink either, women? Would be nice, but if they just want my money that's kinda sad aint it?

Nope.

Only if I lived in Kuwait.

HELL YEA BITCHES

If you have money, you can get women. (http://www.blowmeuptom.com/)

EDIT:  Whoops- link is borderline NSFW.

I'm right there with you, but I'd probably just have a car for the rare instances I need to move stuff or give people a ride to the boonies.

There's plenty of small frivolous, impulsive purchases I would make though if I had ridiculous amounts of money though that I'm sure would add up very quickly.  Large sums of money would probably be restricted to the charity / advocacy stuff.

And maybe a very un-life-like full-scale bronze of myself :drill:.

No.

Cars: I'd buy one new, for around $40k, then drive it 'til the engine fell out (at my current rate... 15y or so).  
House: I could see blowing a million or two to get something exclusive, but this is pragmatic; if I had crazy money (like, $100m+), I'd consider moving to avoid hassle of people wondering how a crazy rich person lives.  If there wasn't any, I like the house I have now just fine.  My neighbors are great, and it's a nice view.
Booze: A couple thousand a year would more than do me - and that's my wish list.  I spend a few hundred a year now and am quite content.
Women:  I've a wife and daughter, neither of whom I'd want to spoil.
Oh, THOSE women:  Married, happily.

The main indulgence I'd spend money on is travel.  I'd love to run around and soak in culture.  Otherwise, helping out friends/family, and charity would be my focus.

It's strange, but I believe if I were to wake up tomorrow, and find myself in possession of Buffet's fortune, for example,  I'd actually do the opposite of most people, and just abandon everything I own, and travel for the rest of my life.  Spend a few months in whatever country tickles my fancy with the clothes on my back, and just see what there is to see.  Once I got tired of traveling, or too old, etc. I'd just find somewhere isolated, and hunker down, and catch up on my reading.

However, I'd probably have a bit of fun with it before I ran off.  Explore the seedy underbelly of America, or summat.  Maybe get a video crew, and see just how far people would be willing to degrade themselves for a few measly bucks.  I imagine I'd have no problems finding plenty of idiots willing to jump through whatever hoops I presented them with for a $100.

Shieet, I'd buy me so many pimp ass rides I'd have to buy another house just so I could park em all!
And bitches, I'd have so many bitches thats what'd they call me - bitches!

They'd be like "Yo bitches, lemme borrow one of yo rides" and i'd be like "Fuck you, get yo own ride!"

And they'd all have those rims that keep on spinnin' after the car stops.  Awwww yea boy!

Thanks. We needed some balance. Almost sounded like this was a nursing home for a second.

That's true, it would be pretty silly to have stupid amounts of money and not spend it on something that would prove to be convenient. :-P

I would. I'd have a nice car - nothing crazy extreme like a Lamborghini, but something nice like a high end Jaguar or a Maserati. I'd buy a nice house because I live in a small apartment right now and if I had the space I'd like to start playing the drums again. The women thing not so much being married. The drink thing again not so much, the 24/7 party lifestyle never appealed to me when I was younger and it hasn't got any more appealing over time.

I don't really do jewellery but I would buy a really nice watch. Not one of those Sultan of Oman style diamond encrusted Rolexes but something really nice and classy like a Breguet grands complications.

I'd buy a few cars for me and my peoples.

I'd throw lavish amounts of money at my friends.

I'd spend ridiculous amounts of monies on my woman.

I would absolutely spend fortunes on expensive booze.





And I'd buy an awesome tophat to wear through all of it.

/second the tophat, possibly a monacle as well.

I would defintely be spending cash money on very good alcohol, I like a nice drink and being able to afford better stuff would mean lots of nice wines and whiskeys.

Cars, meh I'm not too bothered about what car I'd have (hell I don't need one at the moment really, still haven't actually got a driving licence even).

Women, I think I've got to agree with most people that the kind of women who are attracted to large amounts of money aren't particularly attractive to me. If I had a wife or girlfriend I'd probably spoil them a bit though.

I buy very expensive cars.   I'd buy Righ a bottle of expensive scotch.  I would not buy any women.  That's just stupid.

Pretty sure I answered this, but with the right amount of money I would fund every vice I currently have and create some more just because I could. Being rich would absolutely ruin me and I'd be poor again in no time.

Of course, that all applies to the me BEFORE I was married. Now, I'd probably buy a pretty nice car, a pretty nice house with a pretty nice home theatre and nicely stocked bar... after running it all past the wife first.

I'd build a fucking zepplin and fly around the world in it.  I'd buy a decomissioned aircraft carrier, refit it, hire a bunch of those crazy WW2 "warbird" pilots to serve as my air wing, and be a fucking pirate.  I'd make Richard Garriot and his "I claim the moon for Lord British!" routine look positively sane.

Agreed.  It's much better to just rent them.

Cars? Nah. Just a nice solid utility vehicle.
Booze? A little, for quality beer. Don't drink much and can afford that now.
Women? Not in the way intended, probably. I do like to make my girl feel special, but not with diamonds and shallow shit like that.

I'd buy a few thousand acres in the Adirondacks and set up a nice little compound for family and a few friends, stone and log construction. Set up a music studio and woodshop and just enjoy life out in the woods and mountains. Put the rest in a trust so everything would stay in the family for as long as the trust lasts.

I might be tempted to get a t-bucket just for fun.

I approve.  Also, send me a bag of whatever you're on.

Cars - A '69 black Toronado with suicide doors and a bumper sticker that says "High-toned sonofabitch!"
Booze - Lagavulin would probably put my name on a plaque or something.
Women - Hookers and blow.  Emphatic yes.

Those unsure of the meaning behind the "women" part of the equation need to understand that it is, by necessity, plural.  If you're spending it on one woman, you're not doing it right.

I've given lots of thought to this over the years.  Partly because I've "had" money at one point, and it really didn't do anything for my family but turn us into elitist asshats.  I think we're much better off without it, albeit the taint of the elitism is still visible when you talk to us.

Cars? Meh, I'm not a car fan.  I like practical, easily maintained cars.  I'd be tempted to buy a high-end foreign car for a moment, based on performance rep, but then remember it's still cheaper to repair a "crappy" domestic 10x over than a few of the repair bills I've seen on those 'better' foreign cars.  One thing is true about machines, they all break-down in time.

Booze is fun, but never attracted me.  Parents didn't drink much, so I don't either.  I like a good beer once in a while, or some good gin but that's it.  I can do well enough now for that.

Maybe I'd get my wife the breast lift she wants.  She's been bummed since she lost their perkiness with the first kid. She's a geek at heart, meshes nearly perfectly with my personality and more than one like her would drive me insane.  She's plenty good enough for me.

No, if I had gobs of money I'd be more likely to set-up everyone I know so that they could "do what they want" instead of "I have to do this" and go about things pretty much the same as I do now.  My kids would have college paid for, we'd move into a slightly bigger house (2200sq ft sounds like a lot until you have a 9 and 4 year old.  I need a basement to store crap now!) and I'd get my wife a newer, but practial, car.  Probably one of those Saturn minivans, as I think they're pretty rad.

Yes, I'm boring. But I'm also happy with my life (Hate about my job aside, that is.)

Is this like one of those things where the person who gives the best answer is going to be mysteriously awarded gobs of money?  :grin:

Llava is giving away his fortune to the one who'll spend it the most ridiculously, so all you sensible fucks are screeeeeewed

Cars - not really. Probably a vette for fun and one nice luxury car
Booze - hopefully not more than I currently drink, as that would be unwise
Women - yea, well, probably.

I'd be spending money on things that made life easier, and travel.

I'd say from experience that if you spend money on "women" (plural), you're not doing it right.

Free love, baby.
Oh. In that case...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RDSW-ybm0mg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZfIoKTTZuUo

I might spend a decent amount on a chauffer (probably not), but not on a car.  I would be happy with a Prius or some fuel efficient model.  Treating my friends to dinner on occasion would be nice, and I'm sure booze would be involved.  Ridiculous sums not so much.  I might spoil a girlfriend a little, but if she wasn't somewhat frugal I probably wouldn't like her anyways.

The idea of conspicuous consumption bothers me.  I'm not going to do it and wouldn't want to enable others to parttake on my dime.

Oh, the "If i won the lottery" daydream eh?  I've planned it.... extensively. However, only a few of the biggest wins would cover this lot, so let's say I manage a successful hedge fund/private equity firm for a few years and make some real money :P It's extravagant for sure, but I have family acquaintances on Forbes, and my work involves dealing with people who have far more than this list so I'm accustomed to occasionally stepping into the strange world of billionaires and their nice shiny things.

I love the Med, so an island home off Italy or Greece, or a decent sized yacht/ship.

An English country estate. Landscaped gardens. Inside and outside pools. A mini studio/rehersal room, a martial  arts dojo and gym, games/media room, a library. A lake for fishing. A folly. An orangery.

An apartment or mews in the London. Preferably in those gorgeous art deco apartments up near Lords. Interior would be entirely art deco.

Art - HR Geiger, Hieronymus Bosch, Dali and the like. Watches - a Muller tourbillon, a Chronswiss minute repeater or tourbillon, preferably done by Lang himself, a Grand Complication of some sort. Swords - Are any Masamunes on the market? lol. Plenty of antiques, artifacts, fossils and curiosities. Harrods had some amazing fossils for sale when I went in the other day. It would be quite easy to impulse buy the lot. Hmm collecting stuff hmm

Commission certain authors to finish a series of books they didn't and never will due to commercial/legal reasons.

Cars - A couple of sports cars for the weekend (Ferrari and Atom perhaps), some kind of rally car, a grand tourer, a Toyota Landcruiser, something for trackdays.

Drink i'm not bothered about. If I was single it would take alot of resistance not to head back in to the world of clubs, parties and drugs, then die before i can enjoy my orangery. As I'm not, I guess it would be a life of internet, videogames,  reading, music, hobbies, shopping, cooking and dining. I don't think I would be bored or miss working.
 

Derrr!

If I had more money than what would satisfy one woman (more money than Oprah has?) then I'd be sure as shit spending it on any whore that wanted any.  Because whores are awesome.

People who like lots of bent/shabby comics will be especially pleased.

Thanks very much. I'll take that Aston Martin. Stock the trunk with rare whisky. I don't think there's any room in the freezer for the women though.

I'll take it in gold doubloons please.  Then off I'll go to see how Scientology's toy navy likes being strafed by Hellcats.

It all depends.  Are we talking like a guaranteed income of a couple mil a year?  A 500+ mil fortune?  Or just being well off, like senior partner/VP 2-300k money?

If it's either of the former two I doubt if anyone here actually knows how they would act, if it it's the last then, sure, dress nice, have a decent car, a nice house, a couple of good trips a year, eat well, enjoy your tasty beverages.  Why not?  You can do all that and put 50 k a year away for retirement and 10k a year for your kids college.  Good clothes that fit well and look good on you make you happier, a good car that does the little things right makes driving it more enjoyable, good food is just good and good drinks are tasty and etc...  That's why those things are worth the money they cost.

To everyone going "Ew, yuck, spend money on women!!??? @$)(".  I'm wondering if you've ever dated in your lives.  Dressing nice, having a nice car, eating at good restaurants, being able to indulge in fun weekend trips, having a nice pad, having the free time to spend on athletics and sports and etc... is attractive.  Period.  It's asinine to think that being attractive somehow makes the people you attract less worthy of your attention.

Taking a girl out on a really fun date to a really great spot that costs a lot of money doesn't get you laid because it costs a lot of money, you got you laid because the date was a really great time.  That's right, taking a girl back to your doublewide to smoke a bowl and eat cheetos isn't a good date, and if she puts out it doesn't mean she loves you for who you really are, it just means she's just as much a sad-sack as you are.

Did I mention I'd fly women to my island on a private jet?

Maybe I should have.

Does it have to be those items?

Oh, also, if I had ridiculous amounts of money, I'd buy a second island, just to play The Most Dangerous Game.

I'd also buy people.

I'll sell you the survivors of Sea Org's mysterious series of "accidental" sinkings.  For cheap.

You'll need a hacksaw.  :ye_gods:

This is entirely too full of win.  Let me know when you sail.  I have extensive "fuel handling" experience.

Please note that the above are all your opinion.  Some of us are happier in slouch crap as we muddy up in the yard than wearing fitted shorts sipping daiquiris by our perfectly maintained pools.  I don't look good in that state, and certainly am not comfortable, but I'm damn happy.  If anything, wearing those 'well fitting' clothes makes me uncomfortable and agitated, as I find them restrictive and bothersome. Not to mention it's a bitch to maintain them.

   As to the dating blather.. no, it's attractive to a subset of people.  I never cared about 90% of what you list above, and certainly don't find it attaches some sort value that makes someone more attractive to me. You do. Good for you.

Way to display your classisim and cluelessness about people in that last paragraph, though. Grats.

Women can be substituted for your gender of choice, but otherwise yes.

Cars, definately. Right off the bat, a Maserati.

Booze, not so much. The ole irish genetics has blessed me.

Women...I'd like to think that I'm above that, but that's because women aren't flinging themselves at me atm. If I was rolling in it, and a bunch of money grubbing hussies flung their ripe bodies in my direction, who's to say if I'd be the stronger man.

If you have enough money and are willing to share, you will find attractive women who portray interest. 

I would like to be able to go into a strip club and just have a good time without worrying about the money component of it.  This from someone who spent $50 in about 3 minutes and left in disgust since, well, I didn't find a lot of value in the expenditure.  This was just getting in and buying a drink.

Way to read your own class prejudices into what I said.  Where did I say you couldn't work in your garden/yard in whatever?  I did imply you would probably be happier if you went out to dinner not in the jeans you just wore in the garden but I wasn't talking about cleanliness, I was talking about well made clothing that FITS.  Not form-fitting, just clothes that fit YOU, not a hypothetical average person with average proportions but that were actually made to YOU specifically.  They can be jeans and t-shirts but guess what?  When they are made to fit you out of good material and proper dyes they look good.  Regardless of what you do in them.


Riiight, so when a girl in old sweats who smells like cheese walks up to you and smiles with a mouth full of butter teeth and looks at you with jaundiced yellow eyes and her hand out for bus fare you're thinking to yourself, "I see her inner beauty!"?  Or, when you see a woman who wears clean clothes that look good on her, shows signs of good health like good teeth, nice hair, skin tone, bright eyes and maybe shows a bit of personal affluence like nice ear rings or a necklace that indicates she is capable of supporting herself and her own wants you are completely turned off?

The only classism in my post was what you put into it.  What you look like does indicate who you are, they may be false indications but you won't know that until you've gotten to know someone.  But I can pretty much guarantee you that the first person I described is a lot less likely to be a 'good' person and worth getting to know than the second one.

I've posted elsewhere on here about growing up poor.  Being poor doesn't mean having no self-respect, you can be poor and still take care of yourself to the extent you are able and quite a bit of that shows in the way you look and that is attractive.

I'd buy a boat. And by "boat" I mean "the sort of boat that has another, smaller boat attached to get around in". And I'd sail it wherever the fuck I wanted.

And by "sail" I mean "Tell the man I hired to captain the boat where I wanted to go" and then I'd tell the chef I hired what I wanted to eat, and have the general janitor/cleaner/waiter fellow I hired bring me my drink while I went for a swim on the pool on my boat.

But frankly if I had that kind of money, I'd probably feel too guilty to enjoy my booze and "I think I'm sailing to Finland so I can finally see what the hell a Fjord is, but fuck if I can remember what I told the Captain when I was plastered" attitude unless I'd also used a similiar amount of cash to set up a nice educational charity.

Hey, a boat would be nice!

(http://djbarney.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/usaf_1st_aircraft_carrier.jpg)

Given enough money I would buy a large piece of land in south Georgia for my own private golf course, and my own farmhouse on the land.

It's good to have land.

But you would still be in Georgia. Fail.  :ye_gods:

The car would be third on the list, after a monocle and top hat so I can pretend to be Lord Tweedsmuire of Bumfukistan.

It would have to be a Model J, with a bevy of stunningly attractive women--not for sex, just to drive me around and feed me scotch.  And perhaps wash my balls.  Not to mention the incessant polishing of the car after it runs down yet another peasant child.

I'd buy the movies.  And also cars, booze and women.

I was trying to avoid the shallowness thread because I'm very, very shallow, but I'm bored so I'm shallowly throwing my shallowness hat into the shallowness ring.

And that gets the big "Up Yours!" for the day.

The only place I'd rather live than Georgia is Colorado. At least in the 48 states.

I don't think it's necessarily a statement about shallowness.  Perhaps about hedonism, but there's nothing inherently shallow about hedonism.

How do you figure that? There's a deeper version of hedonism? I'll admit I'm interested to see where you are going with that.

Shallow, to me, implies lack of forethought- action based largely on impulses without thought as to the consequences.

Some people, however, are rational hedonists.  They've considered morality and what makes a "good life" and come to the conclusion that a life avoiding harm of others and seeking pleasure for its own sake is the best way to live.  It's a perfectly legitimate choice of lifestyle, albeit one alien to those of us who've been trained from birth to seek a "higher purpose".  Personal growth is an admirable goal, but if you're already happy with who you are then rational hedonism is a valid choice.

It's only when that hedonism comes at the expense of the self or others that it becomes, in my opinion, shallow and irresponsible.  Tom Leykis is what I'd consider an example of a rational hedonist.  He does what he feels like doing (and whom), but he's certainly not a stupid man.  Not a man I personally agree with on many things, but not stupid.  Most of all, he's happy with his life.  I can't criticize that.  It wouldn't work for me, but it works for him and that's really all that counts, isn't it?

Consider it like retirement.  Is it shallow for someone to retire after many years of work deciding just to play golf and spend time with his wife?  Certainly not.  But why not?  Is it because he's married?  Is it because he put in his time before retiring?  It's not marriage, because we don't criticize a widower for retiring.  It's not the time put in, because early retirement is considered a worthy pursuit- those who achieve it are even given some extra respect.  So if you could essentially "retire" right now, what would be wrong with it?  As far as I can tell, nothing.

That's assuming, of course, that there's no Final Judge on what is and is not a valid choice of lifestyle.  I don't believe there is one, and neither does Tom Leykis- one of the few points on which we agree.  If you're happy and don't obtain that at the expense of others, you're ahead of the game in my book.  Whether you derive that from tasting rare wines, meeting beautiful women (or men), collecting expensive cars, getting the Tempest of Chaos from Archimonde, teaching yourself Japanese, working out, or spending time with family, you win.

To differentiate that from shallow hedonism again very quickly, a shallow hedonist often does obtain pleasure at the expense of others, and his happiness is often short-lived.

Not to knock the basic gist of your post, but I never liked the word hedonist. It doesn't make any sense to me to have a label for liking material things when the entire universe that every creature interacts with is, as far as I can tell, material. Or at least I should say that it's a very redundant label. Indulging on the material is the natural order of things. Going the other direction, asceticism, is the unnatural path. There is nothing deep or higher purposed about it. It just means you're a bit of a hater and need to get with the fucking program.

And I definitely don't think liking cars and girls makes one a hedonist. I mean, what happened to just simply liking cars and girls? Why is it deeper than that? And why shouldn't they be liked? A car is a machine to travel fast in, preferably faster, preferably with comfortable furniture, and preferably with the marvel of air conditioning. It's exterior can also function as art. There's nothing hedonistic about understanding and appreciating good engineering and art. In fact, that's downright noble as far as "higher purposes" go. The greatest, "higher purposed" minds in history, be it Da Vinci, Newton, or Archimedes would think that cars kick ass in all kinds of ways. 

And as far as sex goes, until someone calls a dog a shallow hedonist, then I don't think they should call a human one either. Doesn't prevent one from ignoring a higher purpose either.. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Beethoven, Einstein, Martin Luther King? They all had the company of many women.

I don't do drugs or anything but I might just do blow off a hooker's ass in this hypothetical situation. I don't give a shit about car's I'd probably have a limo though. Gotta fit the image. As for booze? Sure. For awhile until I got tired of it.

As for the rest of you, you're either liars or pussies.

Seeing the mechanics as a marvel is what would awe those thinkers.

Getting a rise out of how sexy a machine the car is with its sleek lines, heated bucked seats and all leather interior... is hedonism.  You're a little to close to the truth to see that.  As Llava says, nothing wrong with that if you know it is what you want, it's just not for everyone.

The idea behind the epithet is that you put things above people, but that need not be the case, of course. Those interested are encouraged to read Epicurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus) and the roman philosopher, along the same vein, Lucretius (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/lucretiu.htm).

What if you've already done blow off hooker's asses and had limos? For a while until you got tired of it. Just sayin'.

That's not what it means. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hedonism)  Hedonism means pleasure is not only a goal, it's THE goal and also the morally right thing to pursue.


Your second point there is valid.  The first one... not so much.  It's rare that you can justify human action by using animals as precedent, or else we could justify murdering someone who tried to take your job as well as rape.  You wouldn't call a dog a shallow hedonist because it doesn't have the capability to understand anything else.  A person who acts like a dog certainly isn't admirable, though.  Dogs don't think, they have no reasons for doing what they do except for impulse, and no concept of long-term consequences.  They can get away with that, humans can't.

Ability and power create responsibility.  Attempts to abdicate responsibility while retaining both the former items tends to be viewed as despicable.  Dogs lack much of either; the typical person does not.  A typical person plus incredible wealth even less so.  Live life accordingly.

 :star:

From here on, I'm using the star to mean "This." or "Word."

Dogs can and do, in fact, think.  :oh_i_see:

[edit] Da Vinci, being the artist that he was, would appreciate the curves on at least some cars. I doubt that Newton would ignore such a thing too... If he appreciated art at all. Which he probably did. Seeing that he wasn't a dumbass.

Or what I'm saying is, what does appreciating beauty and design have to do with "shallow pleasure seeking"? Does that mean that anyone who's captivated by the Mona Lisa is a hedonist too? Are you a hedonist for liking sunsets?

As far as sex and morality goes, I've yet to see what the moral issue is there. I even have religious leanings myself -- but that is one thing I can't wrap my head around. As far as, say, the bible is concerned, "laws" concerning sex were right next to laws on property. Because it was a law on property. That was the "moral" slant of it back then -- women were property. Stealing that property was wrong.

Nowadays, the idea of owning anyone is pretty much universally realized as being fucking absurd. The basis of the original law is thrown out along with laws on slaves. Yet, people still cling to the idea of "sexual morality" on some "taboo" level. You ask them what equates it with other very understandable laws, like murder, and they can never say. It's just bad just because.

That isn't to say that fidelity to a mate isn't to be desired. If you're hurting someone, then of course it's bad. That has nothing to do with enjoying the pleasure of sex though. The crime there is breaking someone's trust. Not sex per se. Besides that, what if the two marriage partners adopted some sort of swinger ideal? How does fidelity become an issue then? Why is that a moral issue for anyone else's concern except theirs? And don't get me started on pre-marital sex -- there isn't even anyone to be faithful to at that point.

I follow a Hedonist lifestyle on the advice of the Dali Llama.  "The purpose of life is to be happy."  Probably skewing that the wrong way, but, eh.

Note to any future hedonists: it works better if you have a lot of money.

Your first two sentences do not compute with your last one. 

Makes perfect sense to me.
Money may not buy happiness, but being poor causes alot of fucking misery.

Money makes things easier.  Doesn't really make you happy.

:star:

As one of my favorite quotes points out...

I've been poor most of my life.  Also, not miserable.  I think Yegolev has it right; money opens up options in your life.  If, however, you are using money for self-gratification and calling that happiness, you're missing the point.  At least if what you're after is *at all* what the Dali Llama is referring to.  If it's not... well, again, then those sentences I point out don't add up.

I'm poor and happy as well. I'm with you there. I gotta say though, I'd probably be happier if I was rich. Money provides more mobility. To me, that's better than being stationary. It's a big world... I'd prefer to see as much of it as I can.

Under the list of things that sparked this thread (cars, girls, and booze), cars are the only thing that would require money. Cars don't necessarily make me happy either. I just think they're cool. The attention of women can be had by just recognizing your opportunities. Alcohol can be had by mooching, crashing parties, and being buddy buddy with bartenders.

As far as the three original criteria are concerned, i wouldn't bother. If i had that much money, i suspect that the first thing i would do, would be to set-up retirement for my (small) family, who don't require much anyway. Then i would sink the rest of the money into trying to unfuck the world.

For myself, i might buy an old castle somewhere in Ireland or Scotland, and retire there eventually. Probably buy a dog.

Here ya go.

http://www.cbbain.com/PropertyDetail.aspx?GroupID=36902143&ListingID=9078072

Seems a good place to start.

Well yeah, but try explaining ethics to one.


I don't think there's anything necessarily immoral about casual sex, but my personal feelings on the matter don't allow for it.  While I won't condemn anyone who participates in casual sex, as long as they do so with responsibility, I ask that they understand that it's "just not for me".  In fact, odd coincidence that this subject comes up, I had dinner with an ex-girlfriend Sunday night.  We're both single, and she suggested that we start a no-strings sex arrangement.  Flattered though I was (because I know it wasn't from desperation- she's a very attractive girl, she can easily find men willing to help with that), I turned her down because I don't do casual sex.  What's more confusing for most people is that I am as hardcore an atheist as you can be.

I do have reasoning, and I'll share that in just a moment, but to be honest it took me a while and a good amount of research to articulate that reasoning.  Yet, I've always felt uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with someone about whom you don't particularly care.  This goes back to my belief that, while our morals may change as we hear persuasive arguments one way or the other, for the most part it's an unconscious matter involving instincts and socialization.  I was not, I should mention, brought up in a religious house, and my brother DOES participate in casual sex, so I'm not even sure it had to do with socialization so much as I just received some sort of crazy "monogamy" gene.  Honestly, I can't say.

But to the point, Immanuel Kant has a rule regarding not using people as means to an end, but rather treating people as ends in themselves.  I'll illustrate that with a quick example: The common case given to show this principle is the runaway train car.  The car has 5 people in it and the tracks lead off a cliff.  If they go off that cliff, they'll die without question.  You have the power to stop this by throwing a level that will force the cart onto another track.  That track loops around and will also eventually send them off a cliff, so you need some way to stop them.  Fortunately, resting unaware on the track is a very fat man whose body mass is enough to stop the car, though the impact will kill him.

Studies have shown that most people feel it would be immoral to pull the lever and kill the fat man, despite saving 5 people by doing so.  However, when the example is slightly tweaked to have a large boulder in the track with a man standing in front of it, people generally feel it would be moral to throw the switch even knowing that the man will be crushed between the car and boulder.  The reasoning here seems to be that it is immoral to use the fat man as a tool to achieve an end, even a noble end, whereas the man in front of the boulder's death is accidental or, maybe more specifically, incidental.  He's not being used, he's an unfortunate victim of circumstance- but the lives of the 5 people outweigh his.

I'm not entirely certain I can agree with the principle in every circumstance, and while I don't think it says anything necessarily about the morality of casual sex, it does allow us to illustrate what value we attribute to sex.  In my case, I view casual sex as using a person as a means to an end- the end being one's own orgasm.  That mutual and consensual use, while not being immoral, does, to me, devalue the act itself and even seems to bring into question the sincerity of all physical affection.

Essentially, when I'm with someone I love, I do things I do because I want to make her feel good.  If I was having casual sex, it would be lip service.  False affection.  Their pleasure is incidental, whether they receive it or not, and secondary to my own.  It's not immoral, and I don't condemn anyone for doing it, but I personally find it somewhat distasteful and choose not to participate.

Or maybe I'm just insecure.   :|

I have to call bullshit, unless the question is "would you feel bad as you pulled the lever and plowed into fat dude?"  Because we know everyone is going to throw that fucking lever.

I'd throw it in a fucking heartbeat.

Then again, we all know fat people aren't really people.

Your ex-girlfriend is a terrible example. :grin: There's probably enough baggage there that I can understand why you'd think it'd be a shallow experiment. Whatever feelings you had for her are probably exhausted at this point. You might even have better chances sharing something with a complete stranger.

Anyhow, people can and do have "casual sex" without being completely selfish about it. It is possible to still have the will to umm... give, and not just take, and even have feelings for the person. Heck, even Casanova stated that he was madly in love with every woman he knew...He claimed that he couldn't have even done what he did if that were not the case (and just generally speaking, that guy's entire life was about as complex as it gets. He was far from being self-serving or shallow).

Well, no actually.  It was a mutual breakup as we both came to a realization that our personalities clashed too much to pursue any sort of serious relationship.  We stayed friendly, though we did lose touch for a while.  That dinner was a sort of catch-up.

And that's fair enough regarding the unselfish casual sex.  I don't think I'm capable of it, but if other people are then more power to them.

This thread took a turn somewhere. This isn't about morals, this is about pissing away large sums of cash!

Dammit, people get on track!

Research agrees with me. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060780703/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=317711001&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=006078072X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=020WSNB93628G5G97SPP) I didn't say "studies have shown" to sound credible, the author of this book conducted studies and his results are as I detailed.

I didn't mean to say or presume it was a bad breakup. I'm just saying that yeah, it's over with. Not that you can't be friends or anything.

OK.

I have one other thing to say. While I do have to somewhat admire the comments in this thread about "donating it to charity" or something, I can't shake off the suspicion that these people are incredibly naive. Like one of those beauty pageant winners: "My ultimate wish is for world peace!"

I mean, just how exactly do you "unfuck" the world with money? It just sounds like you're trying to one-up people by saying that. How about being a little more specific.. Like, you'd pay for the hospital bills of poor kids with cancer. Something like that.

Anyways..

The answer is you don't. Given unlimited wealth more than 90% of the populace would collapse under the weight of the responsibility. The fact remains that most people will hypothetically lie to themselves until the gun is in their hands or pointed at their heads.

 :oh_i_see:

Are you sure you are doing it right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029107/

I guess we know what kind of statement this makes about them.

Wasn't part of the sales pitch on the war that Iraqi oil money would be used to fund reconstruction and security?

Oh, regarding what I WOULD do with the money, I'm honestly not sure.  Most likely I'd continue to live modestly (though buying a lot more of the things I want- those tend to run not much more than $1k though) and just support myself with that money the rest of my life, then probably give it away to a nephew or niece in my will.

In my case, I didn't say I would "donate it to charity".  I said I'd like to help friends/family and charity with it.  I'd love to walk into work one day with a stack of $10k checks and pass them out to people I know.  Closer friends would get more.  Family still more.  My thought is that I'd keep most of it as an investment.  I'd draw a salary out of that, and the rest would be for charity, with perhaps some extra thrown in to seed it with.  Maybe I'd support an existing one, maybe one I set up - with crazy money and someone looking to invest, there would be no shortage of people looking to give advise on how to run an org.  I've no idea what the charity would be for, or the form it would take.  Given I don't have $100m to mess with, I haven't put a lot of thought into it.  Probably something directly dealing with people, as opposed to something indirect like reseach, but I can't even swear to that.  I am attracted to an idea like Goodwill, where the organization is itself a community support vehicle, and the organization a secondary support mechanism.  

I have no pretense that anything like that would "unfuck" the world.  Considering that I have already surrendered a fair amount of money to do what I consider to be a community support mission in my current job, I do think I have good grounds to argue my intentions are sound if I had more money to play with.  

Oh, I wasn't really singling out you or anything. Hell, I'd probably do the same too (for friends, I mean). I'd buy everyone an endless vacation. And I'd still have money for a cool car.  :grin:


Hmm... Goodwill. I used to work for them. While they do a lot of good in helping people get work, they still pay their employees shit (not saying this for my own sake either, I had a fairly cushy job). Not only that, but most of that work is contract based, and there aren't enough contracts. Lots of layoffs. If they need help with anything, it's that. They're not hurting in donations, I'll say that much.

This is kind of how I approach it.  There needs to be an emotional investment in someone for it to work for me.

I didn't take it that way - just an opportunity to elaborate.

On Goodwill, I don't mean I'd want to model after them, just that I like the idea of being able to serve a dual purpose; hire problem people to help them get on their feet, and sell to poor people to help them get on their feet.  I think it's more interesting/innovative than most charities.  The lazy charity just forwards money to a research group, or drops a few tons of airlifted grain into the middle of Africa.

Maybe those are the best groups to donate to, but hey, I went into programming because I like solving problems.  Creative solutions are more fun for me, and this is my imaginary charity, damnit  :-)

All you'd have to tell them is they'll have let the terrorists won if they don't pull the lever and they'd do it without question I'm sure.

I'm also with Roac, I personally never give to charity and probably never will, but I'd use my money for "good" if I was more than covered. Mostly because solving the things I see as problems would be interesting and it would mean I get angry at the TV less often.

I'd just pay the tv station to cover more panda births then. Problem solved!

And umm... I'd have to fund panda "causes" for that to even happen, I guess. But that's probably not much.

Reporter: You just won the $300 million lottery, what are you going to do now!?!?

Stray:  I'm going to buy a bunch of pandas and watch them fuck!  :awesome_for_real:

It'd sell papers, that's for sure.

Well, that's in addition to a 67 ray and endless vacations for me and my friends.  8-) --> Gotta use the sunglasses because there is no happy panda emote.

That's a cue for Signe to pull an emoticon out if I've ever heard it.

I'm still waiting for her to pull out the sex w/ picnic table one.

There is a sex with picnic table one?

And who the hell decided to name that damn bear pedobear?

Ya know I'm trying really hard to be a good girl and not pick on the admins but this is becoming overly difficult.

On a side note..

If I had tons of money and blah blah?

I'd spend it all in my Second Life and build the grid's largest continuous cityscape - then I'd sell it on ebay.

Oh, probably just some Anonymous internet person...

So, 300 million?

I'd provide for my Son's education

I'd take half of the remainder and invest for longterm growth and stability  take advantage of opportunities as the arise, but not overextend myself.

I'd buy a nice flat in London.

I'd buy a nice place in Barcelona.

I'd buy a nice place for myself, not sure where.

I'd get my mom whatever she wanted.

I'd pay off all the debts for one person I know, get them to where they want to be, buy them a house and pay for the rest of their education and their children's.

after that, I'd donate to several worthwhile causes and  go about the business of being a mid level philanthropist.

I'd learn to fly.  I wouldn't buy a plane though, as it's a lot of hassle.