Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
I'm not arguing semantics. For one it's spelled semantics; the second letter is e. Secondly, arguing semantics would be arguing over specifically over linguistic development or the relationships between signs. By definition I have not argued semantics until just now. Open a book once in awhile.
Now onto the actual argument. You're still not answering my question. Your average person doesn't have "sleepless nights and cold sweats" over these popular items. They still place a good deal of value in them, that's why it's materialistic. You've taken a stance against these items, which is refusing to purchase them until it's necessary. That is placing, or rather specifically not placing, value in them. Which is anti-materialistic. Aside from one stance being a negative and the other a positive, at its heart, how are you any different? It can't be that difficult to address this question.
|
I didnt need it, I was told to have it. I base this off the Idea that its forced upon me by the overwelming desire people have for material. How is that hard for you to understand webster (sleepy) Guess i should have said you read me wrong sleepy.
I find this interesting.
Semantics: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings