Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

gold diggers

wolfgangxx
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 9:43:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
would you mind if someone married you, in part, because of your wealth/social standing/job?

I think its absurd for people to say "I don't want someone to love me for my money" because that's like a body builder saying I don't want people to love me for my superamazing body. Its part of who you are and why shouldn't someone be allowed to like you because you're talented at making money?

The only exception is people who inherited large sums of money or won it through luck (e.g. lottery) because then the money isn't a show of how talented the person is at making money and then its possible to argue that the girl (and sometimes guy) is interested in the money and nothing else.

But yeah thoughts?
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 10:12:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 9:43:19 AM, wolfgangxx wrote:
why shouldn't someone be allowed to like you because you're talented at making money?

That's not really what's implied by gold digger.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 10:16:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 10:12:48 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 5/28/2010 9:43:19 AM, wolfgangxx wrote:
why shouldn't someone be allowed to like you because you're talented at making money?

That's not really what's implied by gold digger.

This. But I like what Melania Trump had to say once -- A reporter asked her if she would be with Donald even if he weren't rich, and she responded, "Do you think Donald would be with me if I weren't beautiful?" Kinda sums up with the OP was saying.
President of DDO
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 10:22:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Debbie McGee (a blonde stunner) married magician Paul Daniels (an odious, bald-headed little smurf with a face like a dropped pie and who is about twenty years her senior) was asked in a television interview:

"So Debbie, what first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?"
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 11:05:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 9:43:19 AM, wolfgangxx wrote:
would you mind if someone married you, in part, because of your wealth/social standing/job?

I think its absurd for people to say "I don't want someone to love me for my money" because that's like a body builder saying I don't want people to love me for my superamazing body. Its part of who you are and why shouldn't someone be allowed to like you because you're talented at making money?

Absolutely not. Luckily, I will never be wealthy so I won't have to worry about this personally. University Professors don't have gold digging groupies, as far as I know. XD

At any rate, that would not be a healthy relationship. I need a personal connection with someone in order to carry on a relationship.

Different strokes for different folks. I agree with you that if that is what works for some people... go for it. It is just not for me. I would be inclined to think that such relationships are much more likely to cause an overall unhappiness between both parties. They are not getting all of their intimate needs met, since she is in it for the money and he is in it for the arm candy. There is no personal connection.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 1:17:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 11:05:02 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 5/28/2010 9:43:19 AM, wolfgangxx wrote:

Absolutely not. Luckily, I will never be wealthy so I won't have to worry about this personally. University Professors don't have gold digging groupies, as far as I know. XD

At any rate, that would not be a healthy relationship. I need a personal connection with someone in order to carry on a relationship.

Different strokes for different folks. I agree with you that if that is what works for some people... go for it. It is just not for me. I would be inclined to think that such relationships are much more likely to cause an overall unhappiness between both parties. They are not getting all of their intimate needs met, since she is in it for the money and he is in it for the arm candy. There is no personal connection.

Nice response.

I would not like it at all if someone were with me because of money, or some other shallow value. I agree with JBlake, that such a relationship isn't likely to grow and will not create mutual happiness. I have come to believe that the most successful relationships are the ones with values that are in sync, and the deeper the values the deeper the relationship.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 1:49:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 9:43:19 AM, wolfgangxx wrote:
would you mind if someone married you, in part, because of your wealth/social standing/job?
Marriage is a consensual action :P

Yes, I would mind, for the reasons stated by other members.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 1:57:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If somebody tried to get with me or marry simply because of money I would tell them to f*ck off. I need somebody who would love me for my personality and everything else on the inside. If the person just wants somebody for their money and/or good looks then obviously they're not worth our time as I doubt they actually love us for being who we are.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 2:02:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, because if I lost my money, I would lose them. I want them to like something that comes from within myself, something money cannot buy. This lasts longer, and they will hopefully love me longer.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 4:49:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 1:57:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
If somebody tried to get with me or marry simply because of money I would tell them to f*ck off. I need somebody who would love me for my personality and everything else on the inside
Personality is presumably part of what got you the money.

There is a clear difference between "I love you to get your money." And "I love you because you have the virtue of productivity."

No, because if I lost my money, I would lose them.
If you're worried about that, I don't think they have any interest in you either.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 10:17:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 4:49:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, because if I lost my money, I would lose them.
If you're worried about that, I don't think they have any interest in you either.
This does not make much sense.

If someone is interested in being with me due to my wealth, then I would not be with her, because losing my wealth would probably make her leave me.

Also, quote my statement properly next time. I could as well have missed reading what you answered.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 11:45:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 10:17:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/28/2010 4:49:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, because if I lost my money, I would lose them.
If you're worried about that, I don't think they have any interest in you either.
This does not make much sense.

It makes perfect sense. If there is a serious concern that you'll lose your money, you won't get real gold diggers. If you think there is a serious concern of it, you lack so much confidence that you won't get the OP's variety of gold diggers.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 11:51:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 11:45:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It makes perfect sense. If there is a serious concern that you'll lose your money, you won't get real gold diggers. If you think there is a serious concern of it, you lack so much confidence that you won't get the OP's variety of gold diggers.
It is not about concern, but risk. One may be very confident in my wealth, yet due to an unexpected crisis suddenly lose it. If one's wife is with one due to the wealth, then she would most probably leave if the wealth also leaves.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 11:51:17 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2010 11:45:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It makes perfect sense. If there is a serious concern that you'll lose your money, you won't get real gold diggers. If you think there is a serious concern of it, you lack so much confidence that you won't get the OP's variety of gold diggers.
It is not about concern, but risk. One may be very confident in my wealth, yet due to an unexpected crisis suddenly lose it.
Obviously, you're expecting it, so that's a different story.

If one's wife is with one due to the wealth, then she would most probably leave if the wealth also leaves.
And if one's wife is with one for something else that is unlikely to leave, she'll leave if it leaves. You could get alzheimers and wind up with a very differet personality, poof, there goes loving you for personality.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 12:47:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was writing a response at the time when I used a temporary OS, and it caused my computer to shut down. I apologize for the late reply.

At 5/29/2010 11:54:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Obviously, you're expecting it, so that's a different story.
What if you are expecting nothing about loss of wealth? What do you even mean by "expecting it?"

Simply take my argument as mentioning wealth in a confident way, not where you have to worry about it.

And if one's wife is with one for something else that is unlikely to leave, she'll leave if it leaves. You could get alzheimers and wind up with a very differet personality, poof, there goes loving you for personality.
I see virtue/good personality as something that is not as easy to damage as wealth. Ones personal "properties" may also include knowledge etc., so it is not only one thing. Wealth, in this case money, is one thing in general. Lose it, lose a lot of what it brought to you. Losing good behaviour may not make you lose knowledge etc., so your wife may still like you even if you lose i.e. knowledge but not good behaviour, etc.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:38:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 12:47:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
I was writing a response at the time when I used a temporary OS, and it caused my computer to shut down. I apologize for the late reply.

At 5/29/2010 11:54:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Obviously, you're expecting it, so that's a different story.
What if you are expecting nothing about loss of wealth?
Then you wouldn't use the argument you're using for avoiding gold diggers.

What do you even mean by "expecting it?"
Evidently you're rejecting a whole category of spouse based on what happens if that happens. If that isn't expecting it I dunno what is.

And if one's wife is with one for something else that is unlikely to leave, she'll leave if it leaves. You could get alzheimers and wind up with a very differet personality, poof, there goes loving you for personality.
I see virtue/good personality as something that is not as easy to damage as wealth.
You were making a categorical argument, not a statistical one, so this is irrelevant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:42:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:38:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then you wouldn't use the argument you're using for avoiding gold diggers.
Which argument is that?

Evidently you're rejecting a whole category of spouse based on what happens if that happens. If that isn't expecting it I dunno what is.
I am giving an objective argument. If a woman marries a man for the sake of wealth, then if he lost all of it, she will hardly want to be with him, considering she only wants the money. The man has absolutely no need of being "worried" about losing it.

You were making a categorical argument, not a statistical one, so this is irrelevant.
When was I making this? What is virtue to you?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:47:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:42:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/11/2010 5:38:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then you wouldn't use the argument you're using for avoiding gold diggers.
Which argument is that?

They should be categorically rejected with even a remote risk of losing money.

Evidently you're rejecting a whole category of spouse based on what happens if that happens. If that isn't expecting it I dunno what is.
I am giving an objective argument. If a woman marries a man for the sake of wealth, then if he lost all of it, she will hardly want to be with him, considering she only wants the money
This doesn't matter if he won't lose it now does it?

You were making a categorical argument, not a statistical one, so this is irrelevant.
When was I making this?
"Reject all golddiggers."

What is virtue to you?
A trait suited to achieving one's life and happiness. Rationality, productivity, integrity, honesty, justice, independence, pride, courage, that sort of thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:48:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:46:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
For my second argument, I mean that the man does not have to be worried about losing money in the first place.

He does in order for it to matter to him what happens if he does lose money.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:51:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:47:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They should be categorically rejected with even a remote risk of losing money.
Wealth can disappear due to totally unexpected things. You cannot always know it.

This doesn't matter if he won't lose it now does it?
See: financial crisis.

Do people always know what to expect? Tomorrow may be one's last day. You never know it.

"Reject all golddiggers."
And how did I put it?

A trait suited to achieving one's life and happiness. Rationality, productivity, integrity, honesty, justice, independence, pride, courage, that sort of thing.
Good. Now, if someone likes me due to my virtue, and I lost part of is, such as courage, if we say that it is part of virtue, then I still have other parts of virtue belonging to me, so there is still less chance of someone leaving me than if I lost money. Money is money. Virtue is much more, not just one thing.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:52:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:48:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He does in order for it to matter to him what happens if he does lose money.
Why does a man have to worry about his money? He can be totally confident. We are talking about unseen risks.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:55:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:51:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/11/2010 5:47:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They should be categorically rejected with even a remote risk of losing money.
Wealth can disappear due to totally unexpected things
People don't make decisions based on a criteria that isn't in their expectations.

This doesn't matter if he won't lose it now does it?
See: financial crisis.
Clearly, if you're under the impression that you are dumb enough to invest wealth in areas vulnerable to this, a gold digger oughtn't disagree with you-- coming back to my original point that they aren't interested in you :P

"Reject all golddiggers."
And how did I put it?
You responded to this:
would you mind if someone married you, in part, because of your wealth/social standing/job?
with this:
No, because if I lost my money, I would lose them.
that's a conditional premise. It's irrelevant without the premise "I will lose my money." You misinterpreted what "would you mind" means, but your intent was clear.


A trait suited to achieving one's life and happiness. Rationality, productivity, integrity, honesty, justice, independence, pride, courage, that sort of thing.
Good. Now, if someone likes me due to my virtue, and I lost part of is, such as courage, if we say that it is part of virtue, then I still have other parts of virtue belonging to me
It's highly doubtful that you have the parts people liked you for in the first place. Cowards are boring.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 5:56:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:52:43 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/11/2010 5:48:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He does in order for it to matter to him what happens if he does lose money.
Why does a man have to worry about his money? He can be totally confident. We are talking about unseen risks.

This is irrelevant to your case-- since you see them evidently. It is not rational to make a decision about unseen things, in the wallet or the sky.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 6:07:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:55:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
People don't make decisions based on a criteria that isn't in their expectations.
First off, a man has not necessarily any need of being afraid of losing his wealth. Secondly, a woman may not expect the man to lose his wealth, and just be with him for the sake of it.

Clearly, if you're under the impression that you are dumb enough to invest wealth in areas vulnerable to this, a gold digger oughtn't disagree with you-- coming back to my original point that they aren't interested in you :P
A gold digger may not be knowledgeable enough to stay away from such strong love for money in the first place. Think about her knowing that a man has invested his wealth in areas vulnerable to loss.

that's a conditional premise. It's irrelevant without the premise "I will lose my money." You misinterpreted what "would you mind" means, but your intent was clear.
My entire point was that if I knew that someone was to marry me due to my wealth, then I would not marry her, because (one of the reasons) if my wealth disappeared, so would she, if she solely depended on my wealth.

It's highly doubtful that you have the parts people liked you for in the first place. Cowards are boring.
Elaborate on this, thanks.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 6:13:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 5:56:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This is irrelevant to your case-- since you see them evidently. It is not rational to make a decision about unseen things, in the wallet or the sky.
This is not what I am talking about. I make it very simple, yet you misunderstand it. Ask if you want point-to-point answers.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 10:34:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 6:07:25 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/11/2010 5:55:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
People don't make decisions based on a criteria that isn't in their expectations.
First off, a man has not necessarily any need of being afraid of losing his wealth.
If it's not going to happen sure.

Secondly, a woman may not expect the man to lose his wealth, and just be with him for the sake of it.
Either she's right and the problem you outlined doesn't exist-- or she's wrong and you're trying to come up with a new reason not to date a stupid chick, which isn't necessary :).


that's a conditional premise. It's irrelevant without the premise "I will lose my money." You misinterpreted what "would you mind" means, but your intent was clear.
My entire point was that if I knew that someone was to marry me due to my wealth, then I would not marry her, because (one of the reasons) if my wealth disappeared, so would she, if she solely depended on my wealth.
Again, this only matters, if your wealth actually will go away.


It's highly doubtful that you have the parts people liked you for in the first place. Cowards are boring.
Elaborate on this, thanks.
Virtues are loved to some extent as a set. One doesn't tend love someone who massively loses a virtue that was part of the set.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 10:00:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 10:34:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's not going to happen sure.
He does not need to know it. Hard times can come out of the blue.

Either she's right and the problem you outlined doesn't exist-- or she's wrong and you're trying to come up with a new reason not to date a stupid chick, which isn't necessary :).
She is right about what?

Again, this only matters, if your wealth actually will go away.
I do not know whether you work or not, whether you have a lot of money or not, but as much as you may be confident with the money you have, they may disappear all of sudden due to a crisis. You do not have to expect it.

Virtues are loved to some extent as a set. One doesn't tend love someone who massively loses a virtue that was part of the set.
They are loved as a set, but as I implied, it is less negative to lose part of a thing than one entire thing. Losing all money is simply losing all money, no less or more. Losing part of virtue, e.g. courage, and still possessing the other qualities of virtue, is much less negative. If I fell in love with someone due to her virtue, which would be wisdom, good behaviour, or anything else that is good, and she lost say, a great deal of wisdom, then there would still be good behaviour and whatnot. It is therefore much less negative than losing an entire thing that love is based on.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 11:31:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 10:00:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/11/2010 10:34:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's not going to happen sure.
He does not need to know it. Hard times can come out of the blue.
Clearly, if it's out of the blue, it's IRRELEVANT TO YOUR PREMEDITATED REASONING TO AVOID GOLDDIGERS.


Either she's right and the problem you outlined doesn't exist-- or she's wrong and you're trying to come up with a new reason not to date a stupid chick, which isn't necessary :).
She is right about what?
About you not losing your money.


Again, this only matters, if your wealth actually will go away.
I do not know whether you work or not, whether you have a lot of money or not, but as much as you may be confident with the money you have
Huh? I'm broke. This is hypothetical :)

Virtues are loved to some extent as a set. One doesn't tend love someone who massively loses a virtue that was part of the set.
They are loved as a set, but as I implied, it is less negative to lose part of a thing than one entire thing
Not really, especially if virtue is oh so much more important than money ;)

Losing all money is simply losing all money, no less or more.
Fortunes can be remade.Virtues are much less likely to be remade.

Losing part of virtue, e.g. courage, and still possessing the other qualities of virtue, is much less negative. If I fell in love with someone due to her virtue, which would be wisdom, good behaviour, or anything else that is good, and she lost say, a great deal of wisdom, then there would still be good behaviour and whatnot
Why do you presume that her wisdom is not the cause of good behaviour?

And lol, that's a very boring relationship.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.