djsbs

One minor quip

“ The crimes committed there were not different than the ones committed in Europe between Europeans.”

Just over 100 years ago Belgians were “harvesting” the right arms of Congolese for who knows what reason. The Spaniards were always much more benign than their Northern cousins.

Or forget that liberalism has its roots in Spain centuries before similar ideas are found elsewhere.

They weren't killed, they died of diseases. As we see today with the pandemic, the respiratory illnesses were unstoppable, so you cant ascribe guilt through some assumed knowledge of proto-germ theory.

The first law is from 1512, 20 years after the discover of the Americas. Given transportation at the time it is clear that he vast majority of the troops overthrowing the Inca were recruited by the subjugated native peoples. Kinda what progressives [1] tried to do in Afghanistan. Pray, what noble accomplishment do we have to show in Afghanistan after 20 years?

The enslavement of natives was against the law of King. Ignored by criminals, sure, but the law was clear and its violators criminals.

Forced conversion to Catholicism from a blood thirst cult that stained their monuments with the blood of innocents. Ya, they were real bad for that. Btw, if you insist on cultural relativism, what were progressives doing in Afghanistan but proselytizing feminism?

[1] I used the word progressive, as opposed to Americans, on purpose as the war was a multi nation effort cheered on by people, “right” or “left” who believe we have to impose democracy and liberalism on others. I remember before 9/11 when leftist wanted to liberate Afghani women. I remember in August, when leftists were aghast we left the women behind

Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric.

So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast:

To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!

“ Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.”

Its perfectly valid rhetorical device, a needlessly aggressive one that is good at putting down but never constructs. Worse of all, a rhetorical device that has become trite.

Im naturally very sarcastic. In my late 30s, I see it as a personal flaw that has brought me nothing but cheap dopamine hits.

I dont support government support for the arts. At least not in a direct way like buying PPs for library.

Should government buildings be beautiful and be tastefully decorated? Definitely, but no art for art’s sake - it degenerates it

“ These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation.”

By that criteria a Roman era neckless is worthless. Human excellence is not about technology advancement. Its about human advancement. Ill never see a PP except on a store window in NYC. I’ll probably never get around to see the Hagia Sophia either. But I’m overjoyed that humans can build the Hagia Sophia and relieved that in this era of mass produce mediocrity there still are artisans with the focus necessary to make Japanese charcoal, or PPs

Again, sarcasm.

Patek Phillipe is 180 years old. “Normal” people used to need mechanical watches to get to work on time until 40 years ago.

Anyway, luxury goods don't have to justify themselves (at all) solely on their technological transfer. They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.

There is nothing immoral in a watch that took a year of human hours to build that isn't immoral about Japanese artisanal charcoal.

1.“I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:”

Let me revise, since I have met ppl like OP:

Im so bewildered at this attitude that I’ll just ask “what problem do people like you possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

2. Jewlery can be made with slave labor. There is nothing inherent in jewelry that it must be made with slave labor. Thus, you can object to a available jewelry or specific jewelry but your objection isn't valid for jewelry generally.

This is like objecting to running shoes. De facto they’re made in sweatshops, and available sneakers supports slavery. But nothing inherent in trainers requires slaves.

3. As to the scarcity of resources for jewelry, so what? Thats a moral judgement on your behalf that jewelry is inherently less worthy than, say, an Orthodox icon, or bullion as a hedge against inflation.

4. As to cars, most of your objection appear to be directed at their drivers. How is a VW golf more dangerous than an A3? Only if you assume nastier drivers drive luxury cars. Let me assure you I drive like an utter asshole on my $3000 assessed value car (mea culpa. But I live in the mountains, the car is stick…) Nor does the A3 consume more resources than the Golf to make.

5. As your third objection, I dont agree with your statement: “[…]often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them”. Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean. I think that says more about the feelings of inadequacy that we feel next to a fancy car. Feelings we rationalize by telling ourselves they’re doing it on purpose to spite us. They probably aren't giving you a second’s thought.

I think your use of the word “often” is telling. Myself, I’d love to have a luxury car but one criteria would have to be that it is not obvious that it is a luxury car. It follows that luxury cars are not purchased solely to show off (and therefore immoral?)

6. Look, if the OP had objected to cars I wouldn't have bothered to object. Maybe I’d disagree (on the fence on cars), but I can see that an argument can be made that cars, electric or otherwise, are inherently immoral.

The statement was just self-righteous

EDIT: typos. Writing this on my 5 year old SE

OP spoke in generalities, and I answered in generalities with specific examples merely as illustrative aids.

You just used sarcasm.

What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding.

The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing

Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl.

Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same.

Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days.

Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior.

Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.

This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives.

As an example, dog breeding which I know least of the three topics, provided society (the object in your sentence) with very specific work dogs that have served society for centuries. Imagine the Inuit without their sled dogs.

Jewelry and luxury cars are easier to justify, but Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”