[INTJ] INTJs; Inferior Se; And Horrible Taste in Automobiles...

[Not_Me]

Is it wrong if I want to get closer to that greatness, even if only in some small measure, and at an (arguably) silly price?

Not immoral, but inefficient. It's a large expenditure of resources for trivial gains.

More importantly why do you care anyways?

I don't. But this is a discussion forum, in the NT section.

 

[highlander]

This is a very circular discussion

 

[Zarathustra]

Are you projecting?

Nope.

No offense, but your debate debate style is very SF-like. You simply assert value judgments with no proof.

It's rather pathetic that you need to assert something like this.

The timing was also hilarious, considering the next quote you used from me was a formal logical proof.

Are you really capable of believing this bullshit you spew?

Furthermore, you're the one throwing value judgments and claims around without any proof whatsoever -- I've already shown this multiple times.

Every single intelligent person who reads this thread will realize this.

But you did not state what your greater goals are. I don't even know if you are being consistent at this point.

All I have to say is that any car I buy will be in line with my greater goals.

The only case you could make that would be consistent with what you've claimed is that it would be impossible for buying a nice car to be part of one's greater goals.

Feel free to try to defend such a claim, but it would be an idiotic attempt.

It may be irrational for you to purchase a "nice car", but that does not mean it would be irrational for every other human being.

You are clearly mistaking your own values for supposedly "rational" ones, which is a common mistake committed by people with weak critical thinking skills.

It's nothing more than subjective, personal value judgment.

If it's hedonism, then there's no basis for rational debate.

You apparently need to gain a better understanding of the relationship between values, emotions, utility, and reason.

You also need to learn to better use the quoting system.

 

[Zarathustra]

This is a very circular discussion

That tends to be the case when you're dealing with someone who is mistaking their attempt to force their values on others as "rationality".

 

[uumlau]

Tell me your hobbies so I can tell you why you are a piece of shit for pursuing them.

/thread

 

[highlander]

Argumentum ad hominem. I wondered what it truly meant and so I looked it up.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

 

[Not_Me]

When did this become a specific case about me?
This discussion is about the general rationality or irrationality of buying a car one wants to buy.

The common belief is that people buy expensive cars to flaunt their wealth to others in order to draw attention to themselves. If your reasons are different, then I would like to hear what they are. Simply saying that you like expensive cars is a cop-out. There are usually psychological reasons for preferences. Clever marketers are familiar with these tendencies and are well poised to capitalize on them.

 

[Not_Me]

This is a very circular discussion

Because some of my opponents are simply expressing displeasure rather than present actual rebuttals.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

[YOUTUBE="3FTS2tdmyYM"]Girls and boys[/YOUTUBE]

Not my reason.

But it doesn't hurt.

 

[Zarathustra]

Tell me your hobbies so I can tell you why you are a piece of shit for pursuing them.

/thread

Exactly.

The common belief is that people buy expensive cars to flaunt their wealth to others in order to draw attention to themselves. If your reasons are different, then I would like to hear what they are. Simply saying that you like expensive cars is a cop-out. There are usually psychological reasons for preferences. Clever marketers are familiar with these tendencies and are well poised to capitalize on them.

I already directly offered you one, Disco directly offered you many, and many more have been stated throughout this thread.

Furthermore, your arguments have repeatedly been shown to be incredibly weak.

What you have called the "common belief", regardless of whether you are accurate in assuming that this is indeed a commonly held belief, is totally irrelevant, as the supposed fact that many people believe this does not entail that an individual who purchases a "nice car" has actually done so for the reasons propounded by this "common belief".

I don't usually care to point out when people commit informal logical fallacies, as their use does not necessarily make an argument any less true, but, in this circumstance, it does, so I will state it: what you have done is make an argumentum ad populum, which, to be honest, is one of the most see-through and weakest arguments you can make.

As I said before, everyone intelligent person who reads this thread will see that all you are doing is attempting to force your subjective value judgments on other people, under the guise of supposed "rationality".

This is why I said, at the very beginning of this argument, that you seem to have severely underdeveloped Fi (the need to force your own subjective value judgments on others is one of the most obvious characteristics of underdeveloped Fi), but, even more worrisome is the fact that, as an INTJ, your inability to see the severe error in your reasoning, seems to stem from an apparent inability, at least in this case, to see the matter from another perspective, which would be a strong indicator of underdeveloped Ni. As a supposed Ni-dom, this is rather disconcerting; if I were you, I would question whether I'm actually an Ni-dom; furthermore, if you indeed are, I would ask myself what I need to do to better develop my dominant function.

 

[Zarathustra]

Because some of my opponents are simply expressing displeasure rather than present actual rebuttals.

As I've said before, every intelligent person who reads this thread is going to see through this statement for the bullshit that it is.

Considering I have repeatedly rebutted your argument, not the least way of which was via a formal proof based on your own definition of "rational", by making claims like these, you are showing yourself to be either too unintelligent to understand the arguments that have been made, or too lacking in integrity to face up to what they entail (i.e., your being wrong about this).

 

[Not_Me]

Tell me your hobbies so I can tell you why you are a piece of shit for pursuing them.

Incorrect. It's common knowledge that most people who buy very expensive cars does it for the perceived status. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as one is honest to themselves about it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Tell me your hobbies, you coward.

 

[uumlau]

Incorrect.

Meh.

It's common knowledge

Assertion.

that most people

Assertion.

who buy very expensive cars does it for the perceived status.

Assertion.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as one is honest to themselves about it.

Opinion.

Do you actually have an argument to make?

I know why I bought my car. Do you know why I bought my car?

I didn't think so.

Here's a clue - the OP mentioned Se ... Se has very little to do with status, and a lot more to do with fun.

 

[Not_Me]

Exactly.
Furthermore, your arguments have repeatedly been shown to be incredibly weak.

If they're so weak, why can't you simply present rebuttals that attacks the argument rather than the presenter?

I don't usually care to point out when people commit informal logical fallacies, as their use does not necessarily make an argument any less true, but, in this circumstance, it does, so I will state it: what you have done is make an argumentum ad populum, which, to be honest, is one of the most see-through and weakest arguments you can make.

I did not claim that it's true simply because many believe it. I asserted that the prevailing belief is that people who buy expensive cars do it for the perceived status. If you wish to dispel it, then you need to present solid arguments. "I like what I like cuz I like it" is not very convincing.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You have been judged and have been found wanting.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I kind of love muscle cars! Can I get an honorary inferior Se please?

 

[Not_Me]

Opinion.

Well, let's change that to "The prevailing belief is that most people who buy expensive cars does it to draw perceived admiration to themselves."

Do you actually have an argument to make?

It depends on whether you have one or not.

I know why I bought my car. Do you know why I bought my car?
I didn't think so.
Here's a clue - the OP mentioned Se ... Se has very little to do with status, and a lot more to do with fun.

Do you think you are representative of typical expensive car buyers? I don't intend any condescension, but the model you bought with the rotary engine does not appear exclusive enough to fall into the truly expensive range. But.....

How certain are you that the feelings of fun doesn't involve drawing some attention to yourself? If the car looked like a Nissan Versa, would it be just as fun to drive? What if there was no one around to see you?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Clearly Not Me has a dog in this hunt.

I wonder what demons he is exorcising by denigrating car enthusiasts...

 

[Zarathustra]

If they're so weak, why can't you simply present rebuttals that attacks the argument rather than the presenter?

Go back and read the thread.

All the rebuttals are there.

Everyone else can see them.

Whining about ad hominems doesn't make your argument any stronger.

Nor, as I said before, does including ad hominems make an argument any weaker.

Logically proving that you're wrong and then calling you an idiot, doesn't mean you weren't just proven wrong.

(Nor does it mean that you're not an idiot...)

I did not claim that it's true simply because many believe it. I asserted that the prevailing belief is that people who buy expensive cars do it for the perceived status. If you wish to dispel it, then you need to present solid arguments. "I like what I like cuz I like it" is not very convincing.

You're making yourself look like a petulant child, closing his eyes, putting his hands over his ears, and screaming, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"