Opinions on Rings.

[Papillon]

Nope, no offense, to be honest I've never really deeply investigated the politics of the diamond industry, even though I live in the diamond capital of the world.

 

But I would be surprised if you were making assumptions based on prejudice, that's not like you at all, so I'll be reading your link.

[Fedup&givingup]

Originally posted by Thinkalot

I think we are all entitled to view this matter differently. And that's what it boils down to...differences of opinion, differences in ideas on symbolism of love, differences in priorities and so on.

 

Just because I think marriage and a ring are important things, does not mean others have to, neither does it mean either person is better or worse on a morality or ethics scale.

 

I do find it annoying when that is sometimes implied in some of the posts on here.

 

My guy and I love the idea of me wearing a beautiful ring one day, symbolic of our love, and also beautiful in it's own right. If we did not have money for it, well I'm sure we'd wait to upgrade it when we could afford it. But we have decided it will be a priority and something we budget for. It's our value system and belief, and personal tastes that have influenced how we act. And it certainly does not have to be diamonds!

 

I have a beautiful ring which has been handed down to me, which was my great grandmas engagement ring. It will need reworking before I can wear it as a dress ring or whatever, because it is so worn. But I love that I can wear such a precious family gift...and I love thinking of the love it has represented too.

 

Attempts to reduce the ring to money and trinkets and consumerism, in my view, seem to miss some of the deeper points and the deeper meaning it can have to SOME people.

 

Of course, I'm sure, sadly, some people are materialistic. But not all of us who like the idea of a lovely ring, are that way at all.

 

You've put this in a nice light. I think I've been misunderstood, and just taken strictly as being materialistic. I think arguing is all some people want to do, and I think chaos is all they thrive on.

 

Anyway, I am not materialistic, I just appreciate the value of something that's sentimental like the engagement ring/wedding ensemble set. Oh, well.

[Thinkalot]

Papillon, without pushing any buttons here, where do I fit in your estimation of people, based on their view of the ring issue? I'm just curious. I expect that because I value the whole ring thing, and would like to wear something nice, that I have perhaps fallen a notch or two in your estimation, even though, in general, by my own estimates, and those judgements of people I know, I am not materialistic. Certain things however, and certain traditions mean a lot to me, and marriage and all the wedding trappings, is one of those areas. Including the exchange of rings, and the anticipated joy of wearing something I can cherish and value and appreciate and admire and so on, and that my guy can lovingly present to me ( I feel a ring should be a shared cost if both partners are working...and finances are joint). And for me, that so happens to be a nice ring, with a nice crystal or stone (not diamonds say, but whatever suits the individual), which symbolises our love and union, not our ownership. I certainly won't be measuring love in dollar terms at all though. The ring to me is a separate issue, and it does not have to be super expensive if that cannot be afforded or whatever.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Fedup&givingup

You've put this in a nice light. I think I've been misunderstood, and just taken strictly as being materialistic. I think arguing is all some people want to do, and I think chaos is all they thrive on.

 

Anyway, I am not materialistic, I just appreciate the value of something that's sentimental like the engagement ring/wedding ensemble set. Oh, well.

 

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you--I took comments such as "The more expensive the ring, the better the ring." to indicate that you felt the sentimaental value was correlative with the financial value--which is why I, and others I'm sure, saw that as materialistic.

 

But I would be surprised if you were making assumptions based on prejudice, that's not like you at all, so I'll be reading your link.

I have more, I'll PM em to you when I get on my laptop, I'm doing a presentation on the Diamond insdustry. It wasn't a stab at South Africa at all, it's hardly their fault.

[Thinkalot]

Just as an aside- No more personal attacks on here hey people?

[Papillon]

Originally posted by Thinkalot

Papillon, without pushing any buttons here, where do I fit in your estimation of people, based on their view of the ring issue? I'm just curious. I expect that because I value the whole ring thing, and would like to wear something nice, that I have perhaps fallen a notch or two in your estimation, even though, in general, by my own estimates, and those judgements of people I know, I am not materialistic. Certain things however, and certain traditions mean a lot to me, and marriage and all the wedding trappings, is one of those areas. Including the exchange of rings, and the anticipated joy of wearing something I can cherish and value and appreciate and admire and so on, and that my guy can lovingly present to me ( I feel a ring should be a shared cost if both partners are working...and finances are joint). And for me, that so happens to be a nice ring, with a nice crystal or stone (not diamonds say, but whatever suits the individual), which symbolises our love and union, not our ownership. I certainly won't be measuring love in dollar terms at all though. The ring to me is a separate issue, and it does not have to be super expensive if that cannot be afforded or whatever.

 

I've read your posts, and I think you have a balanced view of things. It's natural to treasure things that are beautiful, and have a sentimental value attached to them. If a ring with bigger diamonds and whatnot is more beautiful to you then that's fine, in the end it boils down to an aesthetic choice.

 

But you obviously don't have the attitude of "Bigger, more expensive equal bigger, better love", which is my primary problem with some here. The crux of the matter is exactly that love does not and should not revolve around a trinket, yet many equate the two. That's just wrong.

 

I hope that answers your question.

[Thinkalot]

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

[sumdude]

I think the underlying issue is this.

 

Why diamonds?

 

The diamond industry is ugly.

 

Is more expensive = better?

 

Symbolism is important. Isn't that what the wedding bands are for? Simple gold rings with huge symbolism and meaning attached.

 

 

 

What's a better idea?

 

Spend $4000 on a tiny rock that's only good for show?

 

Add that $4000 to a down payment on a house that will truly increase in value and provide shelter.

[Fedup&givingup]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you--I took comments such as "The more expensive the ring, the better the ring." to indicate that you felt the sentimaental value was correlative with the financial value--which is why I, and others I'm sure, saw that as materialistic.

 

 

/QUOTE]

 

I probably came across with more of an abrasive attitude than necessary. I am NOT materialistic...I mean, I love nice things, but with this ring issue...if a man proposed to me with some cheesy ring, knowing that he could have AFFORDED a lot more, shows me just how much he values me.

 

Also, I AM with the notion of helping to pay for it. My husband and I ended up living together, so the cost of my ensemble was a joint effort. I'm not above that, by any stretch.

[CurlyIam]

What on Earth is your problem? If some prefer it BIG (I'm one of 'em, by the way ) they will most probably want, try and have it BIG. So what? It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with personal choice.

 

Diamond industry is not the issue. Exploatation in diamond mines is not the issue.

 

Freedom in expressing yourself freely and accepting other point of vue - as very clearly depicted in tha posts on this thread is the issue.

 

Your obtuseness in accepting other opinion but yourself as true makes me wonder if all that you are serching for isn't... just a little bit more of attention. 'cause you seem smart enough to "get" stuff.

 

Jeez...

 

 

Originally posted by Papillon

 

But you obviously don't have the attitude of "Bigger, more expensive equal bigger, better love", which is my primary problem with some here. The crux of the matter is exactly that love does not and should not revolve around a trinket, yet many equate the two. That's just wrong.

 

I hope that answers your question.

[Fedup&givingup]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

What on Earth is your problem? If some prefer it BIG (I'm one of 'em, by the way ) they will most probably want, try and have it BIG. So what? It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with personal choice.

 

Diamond industry is not the issue. Exploatation in diamond mines is not the issue.

 

Freedom in expressing yourself freely and accepting other point of vue - as very clearly depicted in tha posts on this thread is the issue.

 

Your obtuseness in accepting other opinion but yourself as true makes me wonder if all that you are serching for isn't... just a little bit more of attention. 'cause you seem smart enough to "get" stuff.

 

Jeez...

 

Right, Curly.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Fedup&givingup

I am NOT materialistic...I mean, I love nice things, but with this ring issue...if a man proposed to me with some cheesy ring, knowing that he could have AFFORDED a lot more, shows me just how much he values me.

 

Also, I AM with the notion of helping to pay for it. My husband and I ended up living together, so the cost of my ensemble was a joint effort. I'm not above that, by any stretch.

I was probably a bit caustic as well, I feel differently on the diamond issue in general than you--but I can understand how your feelings work for you, and I'm not passing judgement on them.

Originally posted by CurlyIam

It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with personal choice.

 

Diamond industry is not the issue. Exploatation in diamond mines is not the issue.

While I understand the prerogative of some to turn a blind eye to it, you're statement above makes no sense. There are plenty of people who feel that the diamond industry is unethical, these usually being the people who know a lot about it--That's not a jab, I know of no one who has read the articles, seen the photos, and still thinks that the diamond trade is operated justly.

 

Again, I'm not censuring you for your 'personal choice', but for many, it is an issue of right or wrong, it is an issue of ethics.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

What on Earth is your problem? If some prefer it BIG (I'm one of 'em, by the way ) they will most probably want, try and have it BIG. So what? It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with personal choice.

 

Diamond industry is not the issue. Exploatation in diamond mines is not the issue.

 

Freedom in expressing yourself freely and accepting other point of vue - as very clearly depicted in tha posts on this thread is the issue.

 

Your obtuseness in accepting other opinion but yourself as true makes me wonder if all that you are serching for isn't... just a little bit more of attention. 'cause you seem smart enough to "get" stuff.

 

Jeez...

 

You are selectively quoting me out of context, Curly. Why don't you quote my first paragraph instead?

 

Originally posted by Papillon

It's natural to treasure things that are beautiful, and have a sentimental value attached to them. If a ring with bigger diamonds and whatnot is more beautiful to you then that's fine, in the end it boils down to an aesthetic choice.

 

I SPECIFICALLY stated that it's a personal, aesthetic choice, and whatever your choice, that's fine. It's not the size, makeup or price of the ring that is relevant here - it's the variable attachment of sentimental value BASED UPON the size, makeup or price. THAT is what I have a problem with - that kind of attitude is not a carefully considered intellectual evaluation, it's an emotional knee-jerk based upon jealousy, consumerism and materialism.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I was probably a bit caustic as well, I feel differently on the diamond issue in general than you--but I can understand how your feelings work for you, and I'm not passing judgement on them.

 

While I understand the prerogative of some to turn a blind eye to it, you're statement above makes no sense. There are plenty of people who feel that the diamond industry is unethical, these usually being the people who know a lot about it--That's not a jab, I know of no one who has read the articles, seen the photos, and still thinks that the diamond trade is operated justly.

 

Again, I'm not censuring you for your 'personal choice', but for many, it is an issue of right or wrong, it is an issue of ethics.

 

Exactly. How many women refuse to use cosmetics that have cruelty to animals as part of their development? But who cares about poor, exploited people in a backwater country somewhere on the other side of the planet? Again, moral relativism.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

Again, moral relativism.

Totally.

 

The difference is that animals are cute, and starving African children are melancholy.

[Papillon]

Are you the Songbird who Sings?

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

Are you the Songbird who Sings?

Bleh. A common misconception. You know sometimes words have two meanings.

[Papillon]

Hahahaha That's brilliant!

[CurlyIam]

Originally posted by Papillon

Exactly. How many women refuse to use cosmetics that have cruelty to animals as part of their development? But who cares about poor, exploited people in a backwater country somewhere on the other side of the planet? Again, moral relativism.

 

Well, I am studying management and was studying Economics before, so, would you please enligthen me and explain from a macroeconomic point od vue, why does the "evil evil"and let's not forget unethical industry of diamonds still work? why is it tolarated and they don't simply shut it down, or nationalize the mines and then install "proper" working conditions, pay the workers better, etc etc.

 

And please don't came up with "the states ignore this reality for the big bucks". Because we live in an era where NGO's happen to have a significant power-just look what they did to Nike.

 

The truth is: "exploited" workers are paid big time - I can't argue with the quality of their work place; profits are great in the industry and RICH people keep this area working.

 

Just as Papillon said, some products are tested on animals. SOME ARE NOT!!! the same with diamonds.

Am I to understand, dyer, that you're not wearing sport shoes AT ALL just to make a statement?

Or you Papillon, not wearing any make up just to be sure that you're stopping the flood of animal testing?

 

 

BULL,my friends!! This exactly what you dyer hate most,and yet are intrapted by it. It's called a STEREOTYPE. Look ct the world we live in a bit closer and stop being so judgemental. Or at least accept you do not hold the unique truth.

 

And it is a stereotype again in judging women who love diamonds. Let me assure you that in order for one to get a diamond, one has to give a diamond to this person. But it's not that.

 

YOU THINK YOU ACTUALLY ARE A BETTER PERSON FOR DISPAISING THEM .... Well, you're not. It's more of a bigotry.

 

I for one admire aperson who( in the light of FT, WSJ, WSJE, IHT, all the "big" papers who need "hot" subjects in order to sell their products, say no matter what absurdity) have the courage to state their preferences opendly.

 

I came from an underdevelopped country. I've lived there for like 22 years. I read the international press. You would be amazed at the difference. Nobody cares to give a proper image of the reality in another country. All that the press is doing is alimenting a stereotype image.

 

May I ask how many times do you check the sources of an article once you read it? And even that ain't a garantee. Open mindedness is a state of heart,no one teaches you that. Seems you thought it was simply a class that you missed.

 

Sorry to say, but "exploited miners in South Africa" sells better the newspaper that "yeah, well, they do have plenty of fresh water and are paid like 2 times more then the writter of this article".

 

So please, you wanted attention, you got it!!! Just don't tell me you're that naive to acutally believe the "bull" "my oh my" mean evil diamond industry! It's all about "look, I'm sucha a good person"and putting down others who have the nerve to speak thier mind.

[Papillon]

Your words resonate with me personally, because I can agree with your statements regarding the media and stereotyping.

 

I'm a South African, and I know intimately what true poverty is like. There's something uncomfortable about Dyer's position on the subject, to my mind. I know what this country is like, and some of the links he has provided merely show photographs of typical South African rural poverty. The whole thing has the feel of a witchhunt. I'm not about to debate the issue with Dyer, simply because I do not know all the facts.

 

But it does appear that foreign people are seeing the poverty, and immediatly make the assumtion that it is the fault of the mining coorporation that happens to be the life-blood of that particular community.

 

The poverty in those photographs can be found ANYWHERE in South Africa, and they are so typical of our broken socioeconomics. Anybody could have taken those photo's 500 miles away and substituted them. It's very easy for people to see that poverty, throw the "Apartheid" trump card (god I'm so tired of that word), and blame the evil, all-powerful cartels.

 

That's why I feel very uncomfortable with the subject, and that is specifically why I did not mention "South Africa", but instead said "backwater country". There is definitely something unhealthy about the industry, there is wholesale murder, smuggling and corruption in countries like Ivory Coast, but I personally feel that the deBeer's and Anglo-american companies do a good job. You have to remember that it's not the Oppenheimers, et al, running South Africa, but a black, democratically elected government, which is VERY suspicious of big business, and has "inquisitions" into big business all the time, especially "apartheid business". The black unions hold an ENORMOUS amount of power here, more than enough to bring a big company like deBeers to its knees.

 

The black people of South Africa have been terrible exploited in the past, and it's true that almost all the big SA companies have profited lucratively from this exploitation, deBeers and Anglo-American too. But what you see in the photographs is not poverty caused by big business, it's poverty caused by the disenfranchisement and exploitations, for generations, of an entire population group, based on a shortsighted and racist public policy. That legacy cannot be wiped out overnight.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

why is it tolarated and they don't simply shut it down, or nationalize the mines and then install "proper" working conditions, pay the workers better, etc etc.

 

And please don't came up with "the states ignore this reality for the big bucks". Because we live in an era where NGO's happen to have a significant power-just look what they did to Nike.

 

The truth is: "exploited" workers are paid big time - I can't argue with the quality of their work place; profits are great in the industry and RICH people keep this area working.

 

This is a very naive position on the matter. An economics student should know how a cartel operates. "Exploited workers are paid big time" ??

 

Am I to understand, dyer, that you're not wearing sport shoes AT ALL just to make a statement?

Irrelevant--but yes.

BULL,my friends!! This exactly what you dyer hate most,and yet are intrapted by it. It's called a STEREOTYPE. Look ct the world we live in a bit closer and stop being so judgemental. Or at least accept you do not hold the unique truth.

Dear God, this is not a stereotype. Most diamonds are the fruit of violence and slavery, that's a fact, not a stereotype.

May I ask how many times do you check the sources of an article once you read it? And even that ain't a garantee. Open mindedness is a state of heart,no one teaches you that. Seems you thought it was simply a class that you missed.

I provided the link because it had pictures. PM me if you want more.

Sorry to say, but "exploited miners in South Africa" sells better the newspaper that "yeah, well, they do have plenty of fresh water and are paid like 2 times more then the writter of this article".

Most major publishing companies refused to publish the stories out of fear, simply because of the violence and economic control of DeBeers.

So please, you wanted attention, you got it!!! Just don't tell me you're that naive to acutally believe the "bull" "my oh my" mean evil diamond industry! It's all about "look, I'm sucha a good person"and putting down others who have the nerve to speak thier mind.

It's got nothing to do with personal ethics, I find it quite ironic that you're jumping all over my substantiated opinion, yet won't let me state mine.

[ziggue]

Originally posted by stoneheather

I care more about they way he proposes and the thoughtfulness of the whole thing.

 

I agree with that! .

[CurlyIam]

Originally posted by dyermaker

 

Dear God, this is not a stereotype. Most diamonds are the fruit of violence and slavery, that's a fact, not a stereotype.

 

 

Facts please....

 

And you still didn't tell me, since your hate the exploitation in the diamond mines and all if you stopped wearing sport shoes just to be sure you're not paricipating to the "consumerism" era that has taken upon our society...

[CurlyIam]

Originally posted by dyermaker

This is a very naive position on the matter. An economics student should know how a cartel operates. "Exploited workers are paid big time" ??

 

My Economics teacher was a 70 years old communist and adoring it a$$... you've discovered some of the blanks... but have the patience and carefully read my post again. You'll notice I asked you to explain the phenomena to me, since... you know the industry so well that you make so strong affirmation about how it works and what it is...

 

That's why I dumped the stupid class and started studying management. It got my a scholarship to France, so it ain't that bad

[CurlyIam]

Believe me, in an ex communist country trying to rebuilt its structure it's even more difficult to tell white from black. So basically anyone can speculate freely on the economic or social stasus quo, which makes it so much more difficult to create a good, clean image for ourselves. Because it's not a chaos anymore. Things do change. And controling the change is the big issue now.

 

So if I understand your position as far as diamonds are controlled... I don't understand your position towards women who want to have them.

 

It's like we both agreed on the industry but feel opositly towards the clients. And since diamonds are mostly destined to women - men to, but they're not the "big fish".... There also is the industrial use... maybe dyer can help with some figures

 

 

And another thing. You said

"As for you statement about "the more expensive the ring, the better the ring, the better the ring, the greater the amorous display of his affections" - that viewpoint is so revolting and narrowminded it makes me want to throw up. So real love and affection is the preserve of the wealthy only? "

 

So you do agree that love is or can be displayed by buying diamonds, your problem is mainly with the fact that are so damn expensive... That's the catch... I am getting a bit tired of this game...