Are Rolex Owners Foolish and Immoral?

[RXAPPP]

There’s an often used saying about opinions and...

[TimeToWatch]

Jokes on the guy who wrote this piece. Given that Rolex is a non-profit owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, your money is going directly to charity.

[DocHolliday]

This guy’s article is basically a capitalism vs communism argument and nothing more. We are the evil capitalists because we worked hard and didn’t want to give away all of our hard earned money to others. I would love to challenge him to find a successful society that uses communism or socialism as their foundation. If he can find one I’ll buy him a plane ticket to move there.

Complete rubbish and sad to see that this is becoming more and more common among the younger generations in America. The world is not fair, but last time I checked capitalism is the most fair and moral system out there.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hambone1983]

New York City, where this guy lives, has $120 billion in debt. So I can only assume he stroked a check to the city rather than buy the silly watch he has been lusting after. You know, because he isn't foolish & immoral.

[Chewbacca]

He can't be all bad; he wears a Seiko SKX after all.

(Love a good kiss & slap article about nice things )

[HappyFamilyVan]

Booze, smokes, fast cars, fast women, hookers, strippers, ice cream, coffee, gambling, sports, chocolate, red meat, children..at some level all of these are foolish and immoral...does not mean I do not enjoy them...it is called life, and my opportunity to make my own choices and accept responsibility for my choices.

So I admit it I am foolish and immoral to own a Rolex.
I admit it I am foolish and immoral that I can indulge and take care of my family beyond their basic needs.

And finally I admit it I and foolish and immoral for wishing that people who expect others to take cake of them and take no responsibility for themselves or their actions would just vanish from existence.

Now as my punishment for being foolish and immoral, I will buy a TT Rolex versus a SS sports model as my next Rolex.

[rominvicta]

He could save himself abusing mother Earth and leave room to roam for some wildlife animals. Is that a good cause as well?

[Smarties]

I think i’m not immoral enough.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by TimeToWatch

Jokes on the guy who wrote this piece. Given that Rolex is a non-profit owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, your money is going directly to charity.

I've known two Rolex Underwater Scholars so I know that Rolex does indeed do some charitable work. But then most large corporations do.

[teabags001]

Originally Posted by dori

Man why even give the stage to a fool like this? Let dogs be dogs

P.s.
That man could go work in a shelter and do some good, instead of wasting precious time writing this garbage... well, if he had a decent watch, maybe he could tell time :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I spit out my coke lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Driftwood]

Explorer 1?

[Driftwood]

He must be on a waitlist.. the pic is probably of him leaving the AD on his weekly visit.... lol~

[Soultime]

I have more issues with repeat buying and disposing of things made of rare earth materials and plastic, which last a few years and then usually end up in landfill.
Phones, tablets, laptops etc.

Not to mention cars, flights, single use plastics etc

A mechanical metal watch, with no batteries, that will hopefully last decades, I have no problem with.

However, the moral question about what good I could do (charity etc) with the money I spend on a Rolex is something that has crossed my mind a number of times.

I am trying to do my bit on the former things. Won't be letting a NY hipster's moral ramblings change anything.

[MJ8]

Originally Posted by Driftwood

He must be on a waitlist.. the pic is probably of him leaving the AD on his weekly visit.... lol~

Hahaha

[Seibei]

Sounds more like envy to me than anything else.

[Dnf888]

Originally Posted by TimeToWatch

Jokes on the guy who wrote this piece. Given that Rolex is a non-profit owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, your money is going directly to charity.

Good on you mate. I was scrolling through waiting for someone to post this, otherwise I would have. The idiot picked on the wrong watch brand, now the joke’s on him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[giorgio.a]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

. The kind of man (...) that if he wanted the shiny thing, then he could have it.

Everybody should be proud to be that kind of men, if they have worked hard to get there.

Also, a rolex AND doing good or investing are not mutually exclusive. He clearly doesn’t understand that some people have money to invest AND to treat themselves. Nothing wrong with it. And if this guy thinks that a mutual fund is a good choice of investment, what a sucker.

He’a clearly a judgemental idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cascavel]

I feel like he's describing me. And those are my better qualities.

[joli160]

I live in a country filled with such idiots

[GradyPhilpott]

The truth of the matter is that this author is pretty much a hack.

There's a market for "virtue signalling" articles that lean in a certain direction, so he picks an easy target, does a little internet research on Rolex watches, plugs in the buzzwords and bingo, he makes some bucks to pay the rent.

Although, he wants to sound knowledgeable about the subject of watches, his facts are off just enough to indicate that his knowledge is shallow.

I'm certainly not one to bash Seiko, but the comparison an SKX to any Rolex is laughable and virtually every frequent visitor to these boards can cite many examples of why.

Also, although it is an intangible property, there is the feeling that wearing a Rolex gives the owner that only an owner can truly understand and it is my feeling that these emotions are not the product of advertising hype.

The sense of pride coupled with the sense of achievement that comes with the acquistion of a Rolex and other high end watches is reinforced by the sheer quality of the product, as well as of the the designs that give one a sense of history, not to mention the way these design qualities feel on the wrist.

It is a multiplicity of factors that lead people to desire and acquire Rolex watches, or any high-end watch to which one can aspire and most are not as shallow as the author would have us believe.

His article could have been made much better if he'd directed it toward those greedy speculators who have put profit ahead of a sense of pride and accomplishment.

[usling15]

Nick the Socialist hypocrite really got us going there. Are those Walmart sunglasses ??

[002]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Well, here's a guy who thinks that the very act of buying a Rolex, or I guess, any watch that costs more than $200, makes one both foolish and immoral.

Oh, the ignominy!

The Earth is dying and we Rolex owners are to blame!

Why I Want but Will Never Own the Best Watch Rolex Makes

Novelist Nicholas Mancusi goes to sleep and dreams of having an Explorer 1 on his wrist

...[I]f I had an Explorer, then that would mean that I was the kind of man who could spend $6,550 on a frivolous bauble, an act so foolish that it’s essentially immoral. The kind of man who didn’t waste time considering the amount of real good that could be done with that money, the wiser purchases, the mutual fund, the people who could be made happy, the gifts he could give, the lives he could change, or of the degradations on the planet that this exact desire for conspicuous consumption has wrought. The kind of man who could admit to himself that he was at base not that great of a guy, little more than a captive to his desires, and that if he wanted the shiny thing, then he could have it.

https://www.insidehook.com/article/w...h-rolex-offers

Yeah, I don't think you completely "got" that article.

He obviously lusts after the watch and knows too much about it, including forum based naming irritations, to hate them the way you describe. It sounds more like a critical thinking exercise to me. Maybe a way to validate getting one or accepting not being able to afford it now. Either way, I dont think its a bad people are responding.

"communist vs. capitalist? " I don't think so.

"Killing the earth" I don't think so either. I mean, come on, purchasing an SKX from amazon must be much worse for the environment.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by 002

Yeah, I don't think you completely "got" that article.

He obviously lusts after the watch and knows too much about it, including forum based naming irritations, to hate them the way you describe. It sounds more like a critical thinking exercise to me. Maybe a way to validate getting one or accepting not being able to afford it now. Either way, I dont think its a bad people are responding.

"communist vs. capitalist? " I don't think so.

"Killing the earth" I don't think so either. I mean, come on, purchasing an SKX from amazon must be much worse for the environment.

I would argue that it is you who has failed to fully understand the motivation behind the article, but you are welcome to your opinion.

The comment about the dying planet references this line in the article:

"...the degradations on the planet that this exact desire for conspicuous consumption has wrought."

From Wikipedia:

Environmental degradation is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; and pollution. It is defined as any change or disturbance to the environment perceived to be deleterious or undesirable.[1] As indicated by the I=PAT equation, environmental impact (I) or degradation is caused by the combination of an already very large and increasing human population (P), continually increasing economic growth or per capita affluence (A), and the application of resource-depleting and polluting technology (T).[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_degradation

[grimps]

You could also say that the purchase of that Rolex has put food on the table of the researchers that helped develop it , the watch makers that helped make it , the advertisers , the logistics guys , van drivers , the AD sales assistants , even the Grey market dealers plus however much tax and VAT helps the rest of society ect ect ect .
If people stopped buying stuff with their money the world would be in a lot worse place

[Devildog]

I'm wondering how many that have commented on here actually read the article?

Of course he's going to be facing a tough crowd on what is arguably an elitist forum.

He does have a point. We are spending $000's on frivolous baubles. As we do when we buy anything just because we can, or because we want to. But to do so is neither foolish nor immoral. It is simply selfish - in the truest sense of the word

He's also writing to provoke thought, discussion and opinion. Which he's done quite successfully I'd say

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I would argue that it is you who has failed to fully understand the motivation behind the article, but you are welcome to your opinion.

The comment about the dying planet references this line in the article:

"...the degradations on the planet that this exact desire for conspicuous consumption has wrought."

From Wikipedia:

Environmental degradation is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; and pollution. It is defined as any change or disturbance to the environment perceived to be deleterious or undesirable.[1] As indicated by the I=PAT equation, environmental impact (I) or degradation is caused by the combination of an already very large and increasing human population (P), continually increasing economic growth or per capita affluence (A), and the application of resource-depleting and polluting technology (T).[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_degradation

[002]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I'm wondering how many that have commented on here actually read the article?

Of course he's going to be facing a tough crowd on what is arguably an elitist forum.

He does have a point. We are spending $000's on frivolous baubles. As we do when we buy anything just because we can, or because we want to. But to do so is neither foolish nor immoral. It is simply selfish - in the truest sense of the word

He's also writing to provoke thought, discussion and opinion. Which he's done quite successfully I'd say

[Onikage]

There are a handful of bs homage brands that make an explorer lookalike for about £60. The cheap bearded £#%&.

[002]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I would argue that it is you who has failed to fully understand the motivation behind the article, but you are welcome to your opinion.

The comment about the dying planet references this line in the article:

"...the degradations on the planet that this exact desire for conspicuous consumption has wrought."

From Wikipedia:

Environmental degradation is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; and pollution. It is defined as any change or disturbance to the environment perceived to be deleterious or undesirable.[1] As indicated by the I=PAT equation, environmental impact (I) or degradation is caused by the combination of an already very large and increasing human population (P), continually increasing economic growth or per capita affluence (A), and the application of resource-depleting and polluting technology (T).[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_degradation

I guess there’s a fine line between Semantics and definitions.

No hate towards your comment btw.

[JonaG]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Actually calling someone a "condescending little boy" is a personal attack. Yet again nuance. So I will ask again you suggested I shouldn't be TRF, what is your criteria?

Also so you don't sound uneducated... be aware you spelled Machiavelli (the philosopher) as Makaveli which was how Tupac Shakur spelt it...nuance my friend.

I suppose some people simply don’t like having words put in their mouth by others. You say it’s a moral decision to own a Rolex but many would disagree with that point.