if you're lacking the resources to secure necessities, you aren't going to be happy.

I realize the graph in the OP and many people who support the view are referring to the expression in a literal sense, but I think in doing so they are forgetting the underlying message of the phrase “money can’t buy happiness.” The old adage is meant to refer to people who see happiness as a procurable commodity, who place reverence on outward material possessions instead of an inward state of mind.

It’s not meant to be taken so literally, I think that what it’s meant to refer to is an issue that ought to be addressed with sincerity considering the overall zeitgeist in the marketplace. We cannot sustain a world that encourages people to consume exponentially on the pretext that they can attain happiness in this way.

And that is easier when you have money to have the things to be satisfied with. It is easier to be satisfied with what you have when you have more things.

Yes. For someone who only finds contentment after they've accumulated enough material possessions, it would be much easier for them to have a lot of money in order to do so.

It’s not required, but unfortunately, most people are convinced that it is.

There wasn't an insult there, grow up. Did you think the graph represented people actually having fun with the money?

It was condescending… much like telling me to “grow up.”

How is failing to see your positional as truthful confrontational?

It’s not. I’m saying that I don’t know how I can help you to succeed in understanding my position if it is your only intention to be confrontational.

Which again proves me right. The guy who has products is happy and the guy who doesn't have products is unhappy.

Proves you right? Or proves that you didn’t necessarily disagree with me after all.

Happiness is contentment. Being satisfied with what you have.

Ok, so your paranoia about a corporate conspiracy is centered around products and not money. Still seems crazy to me.

I wouldn’t say I’m paranoid… just observant.

Yes, that is true. That is exactly what it is. How does that change anything? Did you think the graph was describing Scrooge McDuck swimming in money?

If you seek only to be argumentative and insulting, I have no interest in debating with you. Please try to exhibit some self-control.

I fail to see how it is counter intuitive.

I’m sorry to hear that, but I don’t know if I can do anything to help if it is your intention to be confrontational.

If contentment is being satisfied with what one already has, then desiring more then what one already has is counter intuitive to contentment.

Happiness is not something to achieve. It is a state of mind; a perception.

Products are created to fill some "need" that consumers have.

I find that products are created and advertised to fulfill more for the producer than the consumer, but ok. explicit

Most stuff people buy has some sort of use to them. It totally makes sense that having more things can make you more happy.

My point is that it is not required to perceive happiness.

And just because something has a use does not make it desirable or needed.

In my eyes, a person who is content to washing his dishes with a sponge is happier than a person who is not content because they don’t have the classic deluxe custom designer luxury prestige high-quality premium select gourmet combination dishwashing glove and soup dispenser that he saw on TV.

I don't see how your argument is anything other than corporations have tricked us into believing we need money to be happy.

It’s not really an argument, but yes I suppose that’s the gist of it put into your terms.

Although, I would say that the perceived need is not money itself but the products and services. There are a few, but most ads don’t focus on convincing people that they need money outright, it is more of a conditional requirement for the products and services that they do convince people to desire.

I would suggest that the reason any evidence would propose that the more wealth a person has the more happy they are (like the chart, although satire) is because a person with more wealth has more of the conditional requirement (money) to grant the ability to consume in order to achieve contentment.

It’s entirely unnecessary to buy things in order to achieve contentment; in fact it is counter intuitive. But people continue in this trend.

I think you are miserable.

Quite the opposite but you can think what you want.

I described what I felt was your position based on your argument.

And you clearly didn’t understand. No big deal.

I said someone like that would be miserable.

I agreed. It is certainly a somber way of thinking.

Therefore, what I am getting at is that it sucks to be you.

I suppose it would suck if I were the person you describe, but the only thing you seemed to illustrate is that you don’t understand my position and lack the interest to approach it seriously.

No worries, I have no interest in engaging in discussion that wont be taken seriously anyway.

And why is it that you think that?

I've seen you debate on this site; you seem adept in your ability to reason intelligently, but if my position presents too much of a challenge to you, I ask that you show some self-control and refrain from trolling.

I'm aware of the Supreme Court decision, I do not agree with it however.

I assumed this debate was about whether or not we think that that decision was ethical.

Was I wrong?

"You aren't really happy, you have been tricked into being happy by a giant corporate conspiracy." - Cartman

Yes, I suppose that would sound like someone miserable.

What are you getting at, if anything?

True happiness is contentment. Being satisfied with what you have.

In a society that necessitates consumption in order to increase profit, businesses need to convince the population that they are discontent with what they have. They need to convince them that they are unhappy.

Most marketing strategies consist of convincing the audience to buy based on superficial desires and appeals to emotion; they rarely focus on the actual need for the product or service. A soda company that sells a product using a billboard of a beautiful woman in a bikini and a slogan that says “you know you want it,” has little to do with the product itself and instead uses a clever appeal to biology to entice an audience.

Marketing has become so dishonest that it resembles a scheme. This reflects the nature of the business that uses such techniques, but in a culture that associates making money with an attitude of earnings, it is not realized for the immorality that it is. We are continuously bombarded in societies such as these with advertisements encouraging us to consume exponentially. This creates waste and directs the flow of wealth back to those who distribute it.

A lot of people may not recognize the name of Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, but he played a pivotal role in marketing and propaganda which shifted a frugal standard of life to one that necessitated over-consumption. As a result we have a society which consumes for the sake of consuming rather than as a means to an end, a lower and middle class with less disposable income and savings, a disproportionate distribution of wealth, and an excessive amount of unneeded waste.

I share the same sentiment towards people who consider Obama the actual source of these and other problems.

Why? Why can't the company choose what insurance they will provide?

1. they don’t provide it, the insurance company does.

2. in most cases the employees are still required to pay a premium for coverage.

3. the business owners are not medical professionals or law makers.

4. the issue they are trying to resolve is not for medical reasons or legal reasons but based on personal beliefs.

5. they have no place to dictate what medicine or medical practices should be allowed or not, especially when the medicine in question is not illegal.

6. an employee should not be affected by an employer’s personal beliefs.

7. their employees’ medical needs are not any of their business unless it affects their performance.

The company governs itself, thus it would be logical for the company to set it's own rules.

This is not true; a company doesn’t govern itself.

Just because a company can set rules for itself doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to abide by the laws and rules that are already in effect within the country (like discrimination laws). Companies are not sovereign states.

The company should have the right to set its standards. If they don't support blood transfusions then find a job that will.

Not when those standards affect the liberty of another person.

It doesn’t matter whether or not a company supports or disapproves of certain medicine or medical procedures based on their personal beliefs. It should not affect their employees. As much as I’m sure Hobby Lobby would want to have all Christian employees, they don’t. Unless birth control is made illegal, the employer has no right to say they won’t allow the insurance provider to cover it. That is between the employee and their doctor.

Not unless they themselves offer health insurance to an employee. But even then they should not be granted the right to dictate what it covers and what it doesn't on account of personal/religious beliefs.

If a business offers company financed health insurance as a perk to being an employee; an incentive/reward for doing good work for the business, then it should not serve as a vessel to promote their religious beliefs. They aren’t allowed to discriminate against who they hire on account of religious beliefs, they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against their employees regarding what health benefits they receive either.

What business does the Supreme Court have in determining which religious beliefs are to be honored anyway? What’s stopping other businesses from filing similar suits on account of religious convictions? If a Mormon run business had religious convictions against blood transfusions, would we be expected to honor that and rule it to be omitted from the employee’s insurance coverage as well? If a Muslim run business proclaims their religious convictions against medicine containing alcohol, are we to honor their beliefs on account of religious freedom as well?

This is a step in the wrong direction.

Curiosity killed this cat

Thanks for the lesson. I am aware of the common use of bold text in CD.

If you go back you will see that I quoted your statement with bold, then asked you this question "“The commercial is significant because it was made into a commercial?””

And I followed with “no that is not at all what I’m saying”

And you said “but those are the words you used.”

I misunderstood you when you said “those are the words you used” because I was referring to your words when I said “that’s not what I’m saying.” And because the words I did use do not convey that meaning.

The most I could see someone inferring, if not my intended meaning, would be ‘the issue is significant because there is a commercial.’ Nothing to do with the commercials significance.

However, considering the genuine possibility that it needed clarity, I clarified it in the response immediately following. Yet here we are still, two days later.

What did you mean by the added words that you just throw out when you claim you are being misinterpreted?

“I’m saying that the fact that children are killed, no matter how insignificant you consider the amount to be which would warrant a commercial, just the fact that anyone is killed due to negligence behind the wheel of a 45mph 2 ton missile, is a problem.”

Why do you keep ignoring this clarification I offered in immediate response to your misinterpretation?

This is your idea of defending your words? I quoted you directly and your response was to eliminate the middle portion of your exact text. How exactly is that you defending your words?

Because it was misinterpreted in the first place and I clarified it in the following response, yet you still keep going back to the statement you misinterpreted.

“I’m saying that the fact that children are killed, no matter how insignificant you consider the amount to be which would warrant a commercial, just the fact that anyone is killed due to negligence behind the wheel of a 45mph 2 ton missile, is a problem.”

Assuming a possible genuine misunderstanding, I clarified it. Yet you continue to disregard that and presume to know more about what I mean then even I do.

Like I said, I have no interest in debating with someone if I’m constantly having to defend myself from words I didn’t say and meanings I didn’t intend, even after they’ve been clarified more than once.

This was a learning experience for me, I’ll be sure to try and simplify things I say to you from now on so as to alleviate any misunderstandings.

"used" is a past tense word. It means that previously it happened. If you go back you will find I did quote you. You are incredibly silly for saying I didn't quote you.

“The commercial is significant because it was made into a commercial?” – You “quoting” me, ostensibly.

No, that is not at all what I’m saying. These are not my words. Do you know what quoting someone means? It doesn’t mean putting words in their mouth or misinterpreting what they are saying.

Correct, so please explain how the following is not saying that the commercial was evidence that it is a significant issue:

"The fact that such a thing is an issue in the first place to even warrant the need for a commercial, however insubstantial that need you consider it, is a problem."

Because you could omit the middle portion and it will still reflect my position the way I intended.

The fact that [kids being killed due to traffic violations] is an issue in the first place, is a problem with this world.

As I said the first time you “quoted” me and accused me with committing a tautological argument: ”I’m saying that the fact that children are killed, no matter how insignificant you consider the amount to be which would warrant a commercial, just the fact that anyone is killed due to negligence behind the wheel of a 45mph 2 ton missile, is a problem.”

"Regardless, someone considered it significant enough of an issue to afford it the infinitesimal amount of airtime."

Don't those both say that you can tell it is a significant issue because someone took the effort to create a commercial?

No. I’m not saying that ‘I can tell its significant because there’s a commercial.’ I’m saying I see the issue as significant, and apparently whoever made the commercial does as well. Subsequently, I admitted that I don’t actually know the intentions or views of the people who made the commercial. Like you correctly pointed out, they could have just made it as a CYA thing, could be, I don’t know.

No, you reasoned that the use of commercials is worthless, therefore any message in the commercial is worthless. "As are the appearance of commercials addressing this issue. So the chance that such a commercial is a “waste of time” is a statistical anomaly as well." You are the one who said that the commercial won't accomplish anything.

That was in response to your statement that children dying as a result of speeding violations is a statistical anomaly and your original statement where you said a commercial representing that issue is therefore a waste of time. I’m pointing out that both child deaths and commercials representing them are both statistical anomalies; suggesting that the amount of time “wasted” representing the issue is congruent with the amount of deaths. I said nothing on the subject of a commercial’s worth.

Who said it had to be significant to waste time? I said it was a waste of time and an issue that is insignificant, but you seem to want to argue about whether the waste of time is significant. Interesting.

Yes, it’s ridiculous. As is complaining of there being a small amount of commercials representing a small amount of deaths.

I was suggesting that a minute worth of commercial once every 6 months or so could be afforded to the death of a child every 6 months or so.

Oh, when you use flo it was proper, but when I use flo it isn't. Sure.

“You think preventing .008 child deaths a day is significant enough to make a commercial about?” - Cartman

Yes, far more significant than Flo and her car insurance. – coldfire.

I compared the issue at hand with car insurance, something that gets a lot of airtime for commercials. I believe that the issue is far more significant than car insurance. My reference to Flo in particular was an attempt to add some color, forgive me.

There are no inconsistencies here.

“You are going to use a tautological argument? The commercial is significant because it was made into a commercial? Doesn't that mean that Flo becomes super important?” - Cartman

Your use of the comparison here was inconsistent with what I was arguing, as I’ve already pointed out that I wasn’t using a tautological argument.

To everyone it is. You don't care about 99% of deaths around the world. If you search deep down you will realize I am right.

My presumed lack of caring only has an effect on those 99% of deaths’ importance as it pertains to me. I choose to believe that there are less selfish people in the world, but overall the species demonstrates what you claim.

In that case, speaking in terms of selfishness and lack of concern, I can see why you consider traffic related deaths in children to be insubstantial. Indeed, I posit that that is why it is an issue in the first place; selfishness and lack of concern.

You said the commercial won't be played frequently enough to be more than an anomaly:

"As are the appearance of commercials addressing this issue. So the chance that such a commercial is a “waste of time” is a statistical anomaly as well."

Read above for my indication of what this quote was in reference to. It wasn’t to say “the commercial won't be played frequently enough to be more than an anomaly.” Those are not my words.

Oh, now the backpeddling.

As I’ve stated, I’ve never agreed to or claimed that “the commercial will have no affect on anyone and won't save anyone.” Those are not my words. Stating my belief that media has a considerable effect on society is not backpeddling but a disclosure of my beliefs.

Sweet, back to the "it's significant because they made a commercial" argument. You are fucking awesome. "I never said them making a commercial makes it significant" ... "extrapolate the commercial to deduce the significance of what is in the commercial".

I was suggesting you reconsider your extrapolation when I said “I’d reconsider extrapolating on the commercials significance to deduce the significance of the commercial’s subject.”

Your words:

“you know that the commercial is insignificant, and I am just extrapolating to the idea that what the commercial is targeting must also be insignificant.”

It's your prerogative to respond, but I won’t promise to go on any further. I have no interest in continuing to defend my words from the ones you put in my mouth or the misinterpretations you have of them. This is obviously going nowhere.

I think what was lacking was mainly shared activity to extend the online rapport into real-life rapport.

Probably, true.

I played WoW for a time; it would’ve been nice to have met up with my old guild mates instead of people from a discussion forum.

Ok, but those are the words you used.

I didn’t see any quotations. Or bold text indicating that I had.

Then, you justified your thinking by saying they created a commercial.

That’s not what I use to justify my thinking. The fact that a commercial was made is irrelevant to the fact that traffic related deaths is a problem. Whether or not it is a significant problem is what we disagree on, no?

You were the one who focused on them making an ad for it, not me.

Words from your original comment in this debate: “The commercial seems like a waste of time.”

And I'll remind you that I didn't even argue this point originally. Not until you asked me in your following post if I thought it was significant enough to warrant a commercial.

Instead of discussing whether your position is correct you made the claim that a commercial was created so you must be right.

That is not the claim that I made, that is your misunderstanding of my text. I was not using the fact that a commercial was made as evidence to support my position.

So, you are saying the Irish don't actually care about kids dying because they would have spent more time on it if they really did care.

I’m genuinely confused. I don’t see how you can gather that from what I said in any way.

I’m saying that: you reasoned that the insignificance of the children’s deaths due to speeding is because of how infrequent deaths occur in that way.

Using the same line of reasoning, where frequency denotes significance, one could then reason that the commercial “being a waste of time,” (as you said in your original post) isn’t a significant waste of time considering the infrequent occurrence of ads expressing that issue.

Who brought up flo? You started with the comparisons.

As I said, it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously... and you said it wasn’t.

Even so, it wasn’t an inconsistent comparison like the one you used.

One death in a day is not significant. So, 1 death every 120 days is also not significant.

It depends on who you ask. It’s not an objective truth.

you agree that the commercial will have no affect on anyone and won't save anyone.

I don’t recall saying I agreed with this. And I don’t. Ads and propaganda and media in general have an amazing way of persuading people, most of the time even without their knowledge. It’s something I both detest and marvel at; how easily it appears to direct the flow of society without society’s awareness to it, like zombies. But I digress.

you know that the commercial is insignificant, and I am just extrapolating to the idea that what the commercial is targeting must also be insignificant.

I don’t know that, and I didn’t say that. BTW, I’d reconsider extrapolating on the commercials significance to deduce the significance of the commercial’s subject.

It's weird because Coldfire disagreed with me but admitted the commercial is worthless.

It would be weird, had I said that.

Even with commercials lacking significance I think we could have commercials discussing significant issues.

Indeed, such as preventable traffic related deaths.

Not if the same money could have been used to get even more people to change their minds about something entirely different and save even more people.

Using the same amount of money to save lives in another way would be a good use of that money as well.

Are you saying that we must choose to do one or the other? I’m sorry if this is what you’re suggesting, but I don’t really entertain false dilemmas.

Money used to save lives is a good use of that money.

Saving lives is not really that important.

It would appear that this is the commonly held belief given the examples our species demonstrates.

The world is the way it is because it works. For example, the Native American way of life does not work and so the world is not like that.

Lol, it worked just fine before they were killed off. I suppose one could conclude that their susceptibility to foreign diseases and lack of adequate defense against invaders is the reason it didn’t work, but they were at an earlier period of civilization. No telling what North and South America would look like if the Natives were left to grow and evolve the way other nations did, assuming they would have anyway.

At any rate, the world may work, but its working like a car in need of a good tune up. If not, it won’t be long before its broke down on the side of the road… only thing is that we can’t call triple A at that point.

the number of dead classroom kids is insignificant

in what way?

What makes one number insignificant to another in a given figure? Aren’t both numbers equally significant when applying them to calculations in order to find percentages or probabilities, etc.?.. mathematically speaking, of course.

My point is that you’re not just speaking mathematically. You’re implying relevance and meaning to the given figure in order to express an opinion, speaking mathematically would require only the dissemination of facts and data, void of personal feelings.

Lol, i love this... "can we do it again?!"

I met with a small group of people from the internet who thought it'd be a good idea to meet in public. People I talked to on the internet for years and thought I "knew" in a round about way.

It was.... awkward.

most people didn't show, few words were exchanged, the one who was a real "bigmouth" online was a clenched ass recluse who angrily mumbled something and stormed off, some people who intended to come by did just that... and kept on walking, one guy and girl decided they'd rather leave and get to know eachother in a different way.

when conversation finally picked up we mainly just talked about who said what recently on the forum and who we liked or didnt like.

The four of us who didn't leave after an hour or so played a poor ass game of hack then left.

Back online, NO ONE mentioned it at all, ever! I actually thought for a moment that I dreamt it.