No-one thinks, "I'm happy because I'm consuming." Nobody lives just in order to consume. But if a present or an object we buy for ourselves – say, a chess board a remote-controlled car, a magazine or book, a slow cooker, or a tennis racquet makes us happy, if not always for a very long time, what's wrong with that?
Originally posted by JS357 I imagine that if someone replied "oooga boooga!" we could find a way to have it imply that preordained conclusion.
You sound quite condescending towards the selected few
who would go down the path of "oooga boooga", which is,
evidently, a postmodernist criticism of our age through a
quite smart metaphor of its parallelisms with the stone age.
Originally posted by Seitse I am sorry. Those terms are alien to us, the rest of
the world not contained within the fence around the
Is there an equivalent in plebeian, non-murica speak?
Tax breaks and economic policies that benefit the rich in turn create new benefits that (theoretically) drift down,
like dandruff, to fall on the less fortunate. It looks good on paper, but it doesn't work. The rich keep the dandruff.
Added bonus if you also comment on how does it feel
to live under eternal indebtedness and if such a reality
is palliated by being surrounded with tons of useless
Of course consuming things that stimulate and please the senses, emotional and/or intellectual appreciations makes a person "happy" but it doesn't last. These things of yesterday become tomorrow's forgotten trash. A poverty stricken man and woman naked and alone in the midst of adversities can be happy being together with their rapport, trust and abiding love. Principle: Forget BYOB; go with BYOHappiness. Please explain the context of "to live under eternal indebtedness".