Toy Count at Death
September 28, 2008 at 6:00 pm #2163
I offered to meet another member here, in the OT forum, to discuss the implications of the statement “He who dies with the most toys wins”. I’ll happily admit that I like toys, but think that you can have too many toys, that too many toys lessens your appreciation for toys, that too much tends to become a burden rather than a joy, and that the underlying philosophy of the statement encourages a belief that the most important point to life is proving that you have the biggest “something” (used as a variable, not a euphemism).
I confess that I’d rather have the discussion here, than in a bunch of other threads on the motorcycle topics forum.
Feel free to jump in.September 28, 2008 at 6:05 pm #12896
Sorry, seem to be posting the same comment twice. feel free to removeSeptember 29, 2008 at 2:36 am #12925RabParticipant
Personally, I think the key to personal happiness is learning to be content with what you have; not that I’m completely “there” yet
The anticipation of getting something is often more fun than actually getting it. Once gotten, the novelty soon wears off and then we move on to wanting something else.
It’s a combination of our acquisitive human natures and the way we’ve all been trained to be good little consumers by our media masters who tell us what we should and shouldn’t be, what we should and shouldn’t think, and what we “need” to buy to be “successful” in life.September 29, 2008 at 7:42 pm #12965MattnGuest
Odd, I thought the phrase was
“He who dies with the most toys… still dies.”
Enjoy your life, you aren’t taking anything with you when you leave.September 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm #12973
I guess its OK to go OT on the OT threads. After today, and thanks to our stupid CYA gutless House of Representatives, there are going to be a lot fewer dollars around for discretionary spending on toys. Was it Churchill who pointed out that (to paraphrase) democracy sucks, it’s just better than anything else on the table.
New motto for congress “I’ll lose my honor, just not an election”.
Also, on thread, good point Mattn.September 30, 2008 at 1:09 am #13002
Although they’re sort of coming from the same place I’ve always preferred the idea of not leaving anything on the table rather than “he who dies with the most toys.” I guess the newest phrase is not leaving anything on your bucket list. I always wanted to heliski, dangerous? No, not really. Expensive, yes, really. But it was something I wanted to do and made it happen. Same thing with the bike. I decided I wanted a motorcycle. “So soon after a scooter, why not wait until your 50th birthday?” Well who knows what the next 4 years will bring, who knows how many years after that I’ll be able to ride? I was in a position to do it now and I went ahead and did it.
I will certainly not have the most toys, but the ones I have are very, very nice. I guess I was always more of an FAO Schwartz kid than a Toys R Us kid.
A last thought, I wouldn’t consider dying with the most of anything all that important. However, I do want to die with the least of something, actually I want to die with none of them at all. What am I referring to???? Regrets.September 30, 2008 at 2:52 am #13009MunchParticipant
from the Egyptians…. He who dies with the most toys… still can’t take them with him. Looted 1000 years later , yes…but take with you personally…..nu uh.
Put value in the people around you and memories that you have and make. Those are timeless.
Yesterday is a memory, tomorrow is a prediction, but today…… is a Bi**hSeptember 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm #13030AndrewParticipant
Toys don’t make you happy but if having them can give you something you looking for then go for it. Just don’t do it on credit. The shininess of new toys will always wear off.September 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm #13035
“Put value in the people around you and memories that you have and make. Those are timeless.”
I don’t believe that enjoying, and yes even valuing, nice things should be mutually exclusive with the above statement. Whenever you read about people who value things the obvious reaction is that we should value people and relationships and not things. I consider myself a good, moral person, but I am not the Dalai Lama, and I’d have to say I place value in both. Of course I put the relationships with my wife, my family and friends above all else, but that doesn’t mean I don’t value special items and the experiences that they bring and the memories they implant as well. I am here to experience as much as I can in the time that I have and “things” are a part of that as well as people.October 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm #13115smokeizfireParticipant
As far as the “slogan” goes. I guess it is something the rich and elite may live by. This is why the stock market is in the condition it is in today. I am $99,999,999 away from being rich or well off. And, if you can mesh “doing ok financially” with “elite”, you are a bad MF’er. Moreover, I agree with when you die you take nothing with you. However, if you have children you may want to leave all of your toys with them.
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINSOctober 1, 2008 at 10:04 pm #13134
I’ll agree with your last sentence, Smokeizfire. Most of the point of trying to make large dollars, would be to see that your kids never have to worry quite so much, or have other advantages.
Otherwise, the comment seems to be from some throwback sentiment that life is some sort of competition to acquire. I have nothing against having toys, but think they are a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Also, I understand the concept of “rich”. It may mean different numbers to different people, but I understand it. I don’t understand “mesh” with. I guess you may believe that rich starts at $100 million. Maybe it does.
I’m not sure how you intended “elite”. So the following is a comment I’m not directing at Smokeizfire, but just a general rant about a term I’m hearing a lot lately, and not in flattering tones.
What is this “elite” stuff. I hear this a lot these days, usually coupled with “eastern” or “educated”. Is “elite” someone who has something one wants, and is therefore resented? We refer to US Marines, and certain others, as “elite troops”. Is that a bad thing? If you are smart, hard working, or lucky enough to get an ivy league education, is that a bad thing? Is it bad to be smart? I know teachers who went to “elite” schools. I tend to respect them more for deciding to do what they do. Sorry if I’m adding a little Palin overload to this post, it wasn’t any prior poster. But “elite”. What, we worship the ignorant now?
Disclaimer: as I recall, both our current President, and John Kerry attended Yale University. Both had pathetic grades. W has an MBA from Harvard. Neither is exactly the brightest bulb on the tree. I don’t want anyone to believe that I think that going to a certain school makes you smart. In general, a well rounded education should help you to understand the world.October 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm #13178
The way that the word elite has been demonized pretty much sickens me. Great example by the way of the way we refer to the Marines. I guess in some cases elite can be a good thing, just as long as your talking brawn and not brains(and no I am not implying that any individual Marine is all brawn and no brains).
I believe it all stems from the dumbing down of our society. For some reason the American electorate have come to believe that because Candidate A(notice I didn’t say Candidate P) reminds them of themselves, their friends, their sons or daughters, that is in itself a reason to vote for them. What a crock of shit! Whatever happened to the best and the brightest?
In my mind elite simply means the very best. I do believe the word that would be more suitable for what the right is attempting to decry is “effete”, which is defined as, “soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence”. Is it possible that someone from an effete background might not be well suited to leading a nation as diverse as ours? Possibly, though FDR for one certainly came from a privileged background. However, I guess effete sounds too French to pass muster in the vast mass of Red, so elite is the word, everything we should all try not to be. I repeat, what a crock of shit! For this country to regain the standing, the elite standing, that we have lost, the first thing we need to do is choose our leaders from the elite, the best and the brightest, rather than the intellectually incurious nincompoops who have made this nation a laughingstock and given the world the perception that the American electorate is uninformed and, yes,stupid. I was in England on the morning of November 4th, 2004, the day that George W. Bush was reelected. I purchased a tabloid which I still have, the headline read, “How Could 49 Million People Be So Stupid?” You could say “tabloid journalism”, simply trying to sell papers. However, that is the perception of us beyond our borders. Are they wrong?October 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm #13200smokeizfireParticipant
I think the terms in which you use the word is as important as the word itself. If you use it to describe a US branch of the military, then it wouldn’t offend anyone except our enemies. = ) Now when you have someone running for the highest office in the country portraying himself as an individual who can identify with the “average” American, the term “elite” and “average” are not very synonymous with each other. The first word I think of when I hear elite is, above the rest. I would consider that “elitism” is a mind state as well. Hypothetically, 2 individuals could have the same education, upbringing, and be financially well off. However, 1 could have a viewpoint from the super rich and wealthy prospective, that I have mine and you get yours any way you can with out help. The other could have a prospective that some people in this world really do need help, and share the concerns of the more common man.
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINSOctober 2, 2008 at 10:41 pm #13207
An elitist is an entirely different entity. An elitist views him or herself as superior to the common man and views them, at worst with disdain, and at best is simply ignorant of their struggles . A member of the elite, at least the intellectual elite from where I believe we should be choosing our leaders, would not necessarily be, and for his or her own political sake, shouldn’t be an elitist. For someone like Barack Obama, who’s mother struggled to give him as much as she was able to, to be called an elitist by a political machine that has championed the folksiness of George Bush, grandson of a Wall Street tycoon, son of a US President and John McCain, descended from two generations of Admirals, is laughable.
We’ve been told there is a culture war between the common man and the elite. I don’t believe so, the cultural elite has always existed and always will. They’ll have more money than you and I, and go to better parties. However those with an agenda to divide and conquer would have you believe that there is a war between the common man and the intellectual elite, the best and the brightest, and that is just not true. This is a country where someone from the most humble of origins can find him or herself at an elite institution, a member of that intellectual elite. Does working hard and achieving goals disqualify someone from being able to relate to the common man? Keep in mind that common man may be their father.October 3, 2008 at 12:05 am #13212ReindeerParticipant
I agree… it is in how the word is used.
Elite = Very best at. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with trying to strive for excellence in anything and everything one does in life. Doesn’t matter if one is a Marine or motorcyclist… go out and be the best one can be. In fact I’ll even go as far as to say that I think this is one area where the United States has really lost it’s perspective, and one of the big reasons I am so opposed to socialism in general in that both seem to promote mediocrity as the standard.
Elite = Better than. I think this is where many people run into problems with the concept as it implies that one person is somehow better than someone else. Hence, elitism. Just because a person is the best at what they do, or are more fortunate in life doesn’t mean that they are somehow better than anyone else.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.