You're viewing a single thread.
A lot of people I've seen in Lamborghini cars aren't serious about their lives. They're spoiled idiots who lucked out and got a ton of money handed to them and are driving it around to show off how much money they have as if they deserved it.
I have a buddy who wanted a Ferrari and a Lambo since they were a kid. They finally got to the point where they bought the Ferrari only to realize he has a wife and kid. The kid can’t safely ride in the Ferrari for 12+ years and he can’t fit 3 people in the car so he sold it. These aren’t cars for people with normal lives.
I'm an enthusiast with no kids (and a vasectomy to make sure it stays that way) and I've driven both around a track. Glad to have done it once, but I'm not in any hurry to do it again. Wouldn't buy either one over my Miata.
Supercars are vastly overrated.
Miata Is Always The Answer
Yeah, that's my thought, though I have a kid. Doesn't really matter if I just want to rent one to have fun driving for a bit (other than if she'd find it cool to ride in one). Would be fun for a bit and then a huge liability to own one. Especially with how much attention they'd get. You'd get random butt prints from assholes taking pictures with it, not to mention some others driving nearby will get more aggressive when they see what you're driving, making accidents more likely. Not to mention everything about it will be very expensive.
And, at least based on video games, you'd barely ever get out of 1st or 2nd gear in normal driving unless you want to risk getting it seized (or worse) for excessive speeding.
Also, make one mistake with the throttle and a video of you spinning into a curb or something could go viral if it's one of the rear drive supercars.
If he didn't realize these things before making the purchase, it would seem like he falls qualifies for the idiot side with a sprinkle of luck.
By chance was he able to afford it because of inheritance? Only a fool takes that kind of money to splurge on a vehicle and he would then fit exactly into the sot op laid out.
Do you think your reply was rational given you have never met him?
Yes. That's why I made it. I use foresight and logic to deduce the mindset of the person involved in the timeline as you've described it.
What you've said is a man with a wife and child who gather the resources to buy m a super car. It was only after he had purchased it that he realized it wasn't a practical family car. This scenario does not contain an adult who is using logic and reasoning skills in a major luxury purchase.
You are free to clarify or correct the timeline you described. Given that you choose to attack me instead, I am going to expand on the scenario by guessing this is someone you admire.
You need to talk to a professional if you think what you are talking about is logical.
What you described is an individual with more money than sense and that’s what Clent described. You’re delusional if you think they’re the asshole here.
All you've got is insults; I suggest you take your own advice.
That's not an insult that is a recommendation.
I don't know but I'll happily attack you. Please list your insecurities so I can more accurately ridicule you.
"Wife and a kid" = normal life.
hmmmm.
That’s not the logical conclusion you should be drawing but I can’t comprehend things on your behalf
I mean it was pretty strongly implied but ok
No, it wasn’t. “Normal” in this case means typical. Most of us cannot afford to have a car that cannot fit the whole family
Normal mainly implies average.
The average person has a spouse and a kid. So the statement is not wrong.
Doesn't mean you can't have a normal life without a wife or a kid. It just doesn't mean average then.
As there are substantially fewer polygamists than there are single people, the average person has a fraction of a spouse.
Doesn’t mean you can’t have a normal life without a wife or a kid. It just doesn’t mean average then.
wait. so normal means average, or normal does not mean average?
Its a normative statement. It contributes to alienating people without wives or kids.
Only if you take it that way and if you choose to do so that is on you.
Im the guy who wrote the post. Im an aromantic bisexual, would call that normal? I also have no kids
Perhaps I came off as too hostile. I read your comment and I thought it was potentially harmful and I'm incredibly depressed, so I wrote a hasty sniping response. I tend to think of things said as their effects in aggregate rather than the virtue of the person saying it.
I'm also bi and arguably aromantic. And intend to remain childfree.
Do you consider having a wife or a kid not normal?
I consider it normative to suggest that such is "normal" and suggests not having a wife or kid(s) as "abnormal". At least by implication.
Yeah, it's rather normal to have a wife and progeny, most people do, that's what normal means. You seem to be fishing for outrage, but you are missing that normal does not imply good, and not normal does not mean bad. Being astoundingly beautiful is not normal, but it's commonly seen as positive.