Why do you buy used clothing? - Page 6

It was only one person that brought up the individual vs. social obligation, no one else - and since you've now resorted to ad hominem attacks, STOP SPELLING "JUDGMENT" WITH AN EXTRA "E."

I know that anyone who spells the word like that is laughed at amongst anyone in the legal community. I know my subject quite well.

EDIT: You may also want to look up the meaning of "ad hominem attack" and read the passage of yours that I quoted again. Hope that helps.

I think our beloved Carey has hit almost every logical fallacy known to man in this thread. If he's not a troll, he should be, since he'd make a good one.

Unfortunately, I have made the mistake of feeding the troll. Time for me to disengage for the good of the thread.

Ok, before I was more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I agree with the others now. No need to be so combative, Carey. Why should I or anyone here give a large rodent's hindquarters about your perceived status in society via your monetary buying power?
By the way, is the whole leftie thing suppossed to be an insult? ROTFL!
Sad sad sad.

Oh and

Why are clothes different? Or rather, why can't clothing be antiques? Many of the people on this forum may well be termed collectors - viz. LabelKings and VintageGents recent "vintage items" threads. I don't think the Versace ties or the half-dozen dinner- and smoking jackets in those threads were bought to save money, but rather bought for the love of nice old objects. "Patina" is one of the nicest words I know - not wear, not dirt, but the feel of an old, well-maintained (or lovingly and restrainedly refurbished)quality object. I like things with a history, and yes, I love the few things I have with interesting provenances. New things are nice, but essentially uninteresting. Typically, a well-fitting, pristine SR dinner-jacket from the thirties is far more interesting to me than a new RLPL one. This may well be snobbish, but I know of cliques where having an old DJ, or old, well-used riding boots is considered far more "credible" than just having bought a new one. Anyone can do that. There are a few quite up-market vintage clothes shops in most larger cities these days, and the pricing there can sometimes be far steeper than what you see for most adequate quality new RTW clothing. The financial aspects of thrifting are self-illuminating. There's nothing wrong with saving money.

I don't think anyone implied that their only donation to the poor was their thrift store shopping, but I also don't understand how this ISN'T an donation to the poor, as it quite obviously is. You clearly don't see winos sporting Kiton suits, but the charities are certainly putting the money from its sale to help the needy.

Had no idea that this is where this was going.

Taking care of the Carey is not a social obligation, it is an individual obligation.

This is a spurious argument. Purchasing items from a thrift store is benefiting a different group of people than purchasing items brand new from a retailer, but if one is making the assumption that the money is going to be spent anyways (I don't think anyone is saying that those people buying used/discount clothing are spending any less money than those purchasing retail, but most likely a larger selection) you're going to be benefiting someone with your purchases in any case, be it the poor/needy and those employees that work at the thrift shop, or the people working in the factories making new clothing. I don't think we're in any danger of oversaving, here in the US, if you're of the economic mindset that saving is bad.

I don't think that's the problem. I think what bothers people is that you set up what seems like an ordinary discussion for this forum, and then use that as a platform to turn it into some kind of political debate where a political debate does not belong.

If you recall my posts over the course of this thread, I mostly agreed with you about the general premise of not buying used clothes. However, you lost me when you turned it into some kind of debate over social order, greed, politics, liberal v. conservative and whatnot. Wearing used clothes has nothing to do with any of these things. I'm sure that it's not just liberals that are wearing used clothes. It seems like you just wanted to use the original topic of this thread as a springboard to discus your own political views and to point your finger and look down your nose at other members of this forum. To this, I must most strenuously object.

Carey, you evidently have strong feelings behind your insistence that you buy only new clothes, and I can respect that. I would like to point out a few issues with your statement above in what will be my final post in this thread and - with that - we can agree to disagree.

. There is a limit to what I feel the duty and obligation to support. We live in a (relatively) free-market economy, and I do not have the resources to support every man or woman who works in a factory or office. The fact that I spend any money at all means that I support someone as evidenced by your own words
, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

However, I don't believe that I resorted to any blanket statements or judgments that would require this response: I certianly agree with you there.

But I don't see how not encouraging manufacturers to make short-life, disposable clothing (which I don't see you refuting directly) would be considered elitist. If being of the sort who prefers quality and durability, then elitist is a tag I would willingly wear.

As for gauche, I suspect you are either calling me tactless or sinister for having a viewpoint and the ability to express it. Not everyone will agree with you or me, and using names will neither advance your argument nor sway minds. Might I suggest a career in politics, if not already so employed.
Farewell in any case.