You know you are in the US when...

[Mr.Yankees]

Um, what restrictions? I didn't make any restrictions on furniture that I'm aware of.

Anyway, you quoted it yourself in your own statistics: $700 is only slightly more than the weekly income for wage workers. Any way you slice it, a week's wages is "a lot of money." I'll grant it wouldn't necessarily be a lot of money for you. That's fine and not what I am discussing here.

The first list was from Best Buy among other sources. You objected that there was no furniture so when I responded I went to a site that sold furniture (Home Depot) to check their prices. Would you have preferred I'd stuck with electronics? I'm honestly not sure what your criticisms mean this time.

Anyway, unless I have a change of heart I'm done posting here because I really see no purpose in refuting your statements when you start denying ever making them, as with your claim that $700 won't buy much of anything.

This is my advice to you and I am not being ill-hearted,

Don't take on an argument that:

1) You have no facts (or little) to back it up
2) You are just expressing your opinion
3) You feel compelled to argue against because of your feelings

Those will always bring you trouble. A good orator will always keep his feeling out when debating an argument (there are exceptions to that. Sometimes expressing your feelings will help you) especially when debating in text.

There is no winner or loser and that's something you need to keep in mind when arguing your point. It's about arguing your point in the best way possible. Take all of what I have said as an advice, nothing else.

Stop this patronizing rhetorics, and answer to his last argument - it's not bad. Your weak point is that you think "a lot" is a term that can be objective or abstract, when it's clearly a subjective one that has to be examined considering a given person. Or, to use your statistics, for the average full-time worker without high school, it would be slightly less than a month's half wage, which will mean "a lot" for him, for the 10% on the top it wouldn't. For some reason your statistic seems to completely ignore unemployment - thus more or less distorting the whole statistics with this.

Furthermore, you pretend that the only way to determine if 700$ is "a lot" is to compare wages and not prices, which is quite problematic - wages don't tell half as much as prices about the worth of a currency.

Your arguments are in no way better than aether's, they are just more arrogantly phrased.

Look at the statistics I provided again before you lash out at someone. Once you have read and analyzed the statistics, come back and make your point but please, read it first.

EDIT: And I will ask that you moderate your tone of voice. This is a friendly discussion not an animal rampage. Thank you.

[Opakidabar]

Earnings per person in 2006:
$0 to $25,000 (35%)
$25,000 to $50,000 (36%)
$50,000 to $75,000 (16%)
$75,000 to $100,000 (6%)
$100,000 or more (7%)
Now, take all of the info I just gave you. From education to mean income per person to earnings per household, etc. and reach your own conclusions from there on whether $700 is a lot of money or not.

If that is before-tax earnings:
For 35% of population it is a lot of money
For 36% of population it depends on their financial health and indebtedness (if free of loans and take care of savings then small enough money)
For 29% of population it is a small money
If that is after-tax earnings:
My estimate is for around 25% it is a lot of money
For rest in America it ranges between "important money but can live without" to "cash".

[Amazeroth]

Stop this patronizing rhetorics, and answer to his last argument - it's not bad. Your weak point is that you think "a lot" is a term that can be objective or abstract, when it's clearly a subjective one that has to be examined considering a given person. Or, to use your statistics, for the average full-time worker without high school, it would be slightly less than a month's half wage, which will mean "a lot" for him, for the 10% on the top it wouldn't. For some reason your statistic seems to completely ignore unemployment - thus more or less distorting the whole statistics with this.

Furthermore, you pretend that the only way to determine if 700$ is "a lot" is to compare wages and not prices, which is quite problematic - wages don't tell half as much as prices about the worth of a currency.

Your arguments are in no way better than aether's, they are just more arrogantly phrased.

Look at the statistics I provided again before you lash out at someone. Once you have read and analyzed the statistics, come back and make your point but please, read it first.

EDIT: And I will ask that you moderate your tone of voice. This is a friendly discussion not an animal rampage. Thank you.

Please reread my last post, and please recognise that the part affected by your statistics was indeed based on the statistics you provided.

And please forgive me for ever stating you could be arrogant or patronizing, when clearly your tone doesn't indicate any attempt at all to argument ad hominem (via letting things show as if you were the only objective one here.)

But, if you have better things to do than that, please just prove why my theory that "a lot" cannot be determined objectively, and that determining "a lot" should be based on what you can buy with it rather than how much wages you get. This has hardly anything to do with your statistics, but is rather the more theoretical - philosophical if you will - question.

And, as a little post scriptum, if you want to maintain a constructive discussion, please make your points a bit clearer. Just saying that my point ignores your statistics in some way is not really enough, you would have to specify how it does that. If you don't, it makes you look arrogant, because it seems that you would find yourself to important to really elaborate why your opponents point is wrong. I'm not saying that you are arrogant, as I don't want to indulge in another "animal rampage", I'm just saying that, from the wrong point of view perhaps, it might seem so to an objective observer.

[JuliaAJA]

On a topic from a few pages ago:
Someone tried to break into my house again last night, late at night, didn't knock, didn't ring the bell, just tried the door and ran as fast as possible. Good thing I always lock the door, I've saved my mom's life twice now and now my sister once. Why didn't they try a downstairs apartment, they could've jumped on the patio and tried the sliding doors. What do people have to say about that?

[Khaler]

On a topic from a few pages ago:
Someone tried to break into my house again last night, late at night, didn't knock, didn't ring the bell, just tried the door and ran as fast as possible. Good thing I always lock the door, I've saved my mom's life twice now and now my sister once. Why didn't they try a downstairs apartment, they could've jumped on the patio and tried the sliding doors. What do people have to say about that?

So, burglars in america, if they find unlocked door, kill everyone inside. But if the door is locked, these homicidal criminals just run away as fast as possible?

[JuliaAJA]

So, burglars in america, if they find unlocked door, kill everyone inside. But if the door is locked, these homicidal criminals just run away as fast as possible?

Why do you think they were there?

[Khaler]

To steal stuff? I don't know about your country, but here you can steal stuff without killing people. Actually that is what happens 99,9% of the time.

[JuliaAJA]

That is a more reasonable assessment I guess.

[Mr.Yankees]

Interesting twist to the story: It happened to my mother yesterday. Same thing. They stole her purse, a suitcase with clothes she had in the trunk (women and their cars), shoes, and even try to steal the car but apparently they weren't smart enough to do it. The only difference here is that they caught the bastards today. Let's put it this way: My dear mother knows people. I won't say more.

What are the chances of that happening to members of the same family in two weeks? I am honestly worried about the state of this country. It's alarming to see the rate of burglaries increase so drastically. I am not saying that because it happened to me and my mother but I read about it on the paper all the time. I am deeply concerned...

[Khaler]

Well, If I would not have any food or home, I would definately steal from rich dudes driving around in their mercedes'.

Legends like Robin Hood were heroes, you know. And now the world is moving towards similiar times again...

How to stop it? How about helping your countrymen who are in need so that they can survive without crime? It sure has worked here.