Wealthy Chinese man buys two gold Apple Watch Editions for dog, prompts bizarre controversy

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 93
    idreyidrey Posts: 647member
    $28k is a lot of money to many and at the same time is less than pocket change for some. I feel that those who criticize the most are just jelous they can't do such a thing. Stop hating the player he just got lucky enough that he found some pocket change in his couch and was able to buy 2 gold ?Watches. There are people walking around with rings in their fingers that are worth millions of $$, there are dogs with diamond collars, and people are bitching for 2 gold ?Watches. Get real.
  • Reply 42 of 93
    idreyidrey Posts: 647member
    wurm5150 wrote: »
    Some people are stupid rich. For everyone else, there's SPRINT's Cut Your Bill in Half.

    ???? nice
  • Reply 43 of 93
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 120member
    mystigo wrote: »
    <h1 style="border:0px;clear:both;color:rgb(17,17,17);margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;padding-bottom:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">A dog with one watch always knows what time it is.

    A dog with two watches is never quite sure.</h1>

    Silly dog wished for two beautiful white things to chew on. Should have been more specific!
  • Reply 44 of 93
    ilovestuffilovestuff Posts: 143member

    It's funny because because the Earth is dying. 

  • Reply 45 of 93
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

     




    sense = worship of specs & benchmarks

  • Reply 46 of 93
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,783member
    ilovestuff wrote: »
    It's funny because because the Earth is dying. 
    You know, you are right. It's all been downhill ever since the steam engine was invented. Before then of course, everyone lived in total harmony with all creatures great and small, even the Bush family's ancestors, and lived to a ripe old age. Nobody ever aimlessly wandered around with placards preaching the end is nigh either.

    Back on topic: I wonder who the second watch was really for? Wife or mistress?
  • Reply 47 of 93
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member

    Are all the posters losing their sense of numbers?  $28K is not a lot of money.  It is not even enough to buy a new BMW.

  • Reply 48 of 93
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    rgh71 wrote: »
    Silly dog wished for two beautiful white things to chew on. Should have been more specific!

    You know, I have a husky. She would have had both of those fluoroelastomer bands chewed off within 10 minutes.
  • Reply 49 of 93
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post



    You know, I have a husky. She would have had both of those fluoroelastomer bands chewed off within 10 minutes.

     

    Android dog, huh? Yeah you're not fooling anyone.

  • Reply 50 of 93
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    woodworks wrote: »

    I don't know you. But it's a good bet that just by being on this forum that you've probably amassed greater wealth than 90% of the people on this planet. So how much of your wealth goes toward relieving the suffering of your fellow humans? Those who live in glass houses...

    Shhh. It's his money. He wants other people to donate so he feels less guilty.
  • Reply 51 of 93
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WoodWorks View Post

     



    I don't know you. But it's a good bet that just by being on this forum that you've probably amassed greater wealth than 90% of the people on this planet. So how much of your wealth goes toward relieving the suffering of your fellow humans? Those who live in glass houses...


     

    That's almost a sure bet. It's amazing how many liberals likes to cite that the top 1% of the World richest owns 90% of the wealth without actually looking into what it takes to be in the top 1%. 

     

    1% of the World population is 70,000,000 people. To be in the top 1%, one don't even need to have $1,000,000 in wealth. Just $750,000 in wealth will get you there. That's wealth minus all debt, not annual income.

     

    10% of the World population is 700,000,000 people. To have more wealth that 90% of the World's population, one only needs to have $77,000 in wealth. Owning a home with $100,000 in equity or a modest IRA account will get you there.

     

    The average annual income of the World is $10,000. So a person making minimum wage in the US, makes twice the average annual income of the World's  population. The average annual income of the bottom 50% is less than $5000. The bottom 50% owns less than 5% of the World's wealth. 

     

    A good bet would be that half the people on this forum are part of the 1% that owns 90% owns the World's wealth. 

  • Reply 52 of 93
    paul turnerpaul turner Posts: 222member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post



    Glad to see that idiocy is a global phenomenon.



    Really why would you want to see more idiocy in this world? 

  • Reply 53 of 93
    paul turnerpaul turner Posts: 222member

    Perhaps he really wanted a Watchdog!

  • Reply 54 of 93
    paul turnerpaul turner Posts: 222member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

     

     

    That's almost a sure bet. It's amazing how many liberals likes to cite that the top 1% of the World richest owns 90% of the wealth without actually looking into what it takes to be in the top 1%. 

     

    1% of the World population is 70,000,000 people. To be in the top 1%, one don't even need to have $1,000,000 in wealth. Just $750,000 in wealth will get you there. That's wealth minus all debt, not annual income.

     

    10% of the World population is 700,000,000 people. To have more wealth that 90% of the World's population, one only needs to have $77,000 in wealth. Owning a home with $100,000 in equity or a modest IRA account will get you there.

     

    The average annual income of the World is $10,000. So a person making minimum wage in the US, makes twice the average annual income of the World's  population. The average annual income of the bottom 50% is less than $5000. The bottom 50% owns less than 5% of the World's wealth. 

     

    A good bet would be that half the people on this forum are part of the 1% that owns 90% owns the World's wealth. 




    And what is your point?

  • Reply 55 of 93
    joogabahjoogabah Posts: 139member
    Funny to watch so many stumble over themselves to make sure they state their approval of this rich asshole's privilege to not so subtly insult other people as being worth less than his dog. Got to defend personal accumulation of wealth above all else because we are free to think for ourselves and are in no way encumbered by ideology!
  • Reply 56 of 93
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

     



    Actually, when a person has the chance to do good for society and would rather waste the opportunity by spending a ridiculous amount of money on an animal that has no want or need for expensive jewelry, then I'd say he's justifiably the target of criticism.


    who's to say he doesn't donate money or help out the local community in other ways. What if... *shock* this was a joke photo and the watches weren't actually for teh dog? bit harsh to make judgement on whoever this guy is based on one photo posted to the internet. 

  • Reply 57 of 93
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,362member
    Wealthy people such as this guy might have monetary riches but certainly little moral, empathetic, or intellectual wealth.

    While I would agree he can do whatever he wants with his money, when comparing what his dog needs versus what the poor people in his city needs, he would rather spend $28K on a dog that has zero desire or need for a watch - let alone two expensive ones - than to help people in need of food or shelter.

    Funny on the surface but what a disgusting excuse of a human being.

    A "disgusting excuse for a human being"? The fact that accuse him of such with zero information tells us much more about you, than anything else.

    - you have no clue if those are actually for his dog (probably not)
    - you have no clue if he paid for one, both, or neither
    - you have no clue how much he donates to charity or other causes

    I think the despicable human being is the self
    Righteous one who is quick to judge and condemn.
  • Reply 58 of 93
    pioneer01pioneer01 Posts: 46member

    My dog is jealous

  • Reply 59 of 93
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joogabah View Post



    Funny to watch so many stumble over themselves to make sure they state their approval of this rich asshole's privilege to not so subtly insult other people as being worth less than his dog. Got to defend personal accumulation of wealth above all else because we are free to think for ourselves and are in no way encumbered by ideology!

     

    In the US, pet owners spends about $60B a year on their pets. That's "a year." That's just in the US. And that's not just the cost to feed a pet license fees and vet bills. The Bill Gate foundation would be broke in 2 years at that rate. Even after spending Warren Buffets donation.  This guy could spend all his wealth on his dog and it would only be half of what US pet owners spend on their pets, in a year. And it's not just the 1% or 10%, I've seen homeless people making sure their pet dog got enough to eat, while they themselves don't have enough to eat.

     

    So are you saying that every pet owner are guilty of not so subtly insulting other people as being worth less than their pets because they would rather spend the money to own a pet, rather than to give that money away to other people that needs it? 

  • Reply 60 of 93
    joogabahjoogabah Posts: 139member
    davidw wrote: »
    In the US, pet owners spends about $60B a year on their pets. That's "a year." That's just in the US. And that's not just the cost to feed a pet license fees and vet bills. The Bill Gate foundation would be broke in 2 years at that rate. Even after spending Warren Buffets donation.  This guy could spend all his wealth on his dog and it would only be half of what US pet owners spend on their pets, in a year. And it's not just the 1% or 10%, I've seen homeless people making sure their pet dog got enough to eat, while they themselves don't have enough to eat.

    So are you saying that every pet owner are guilty of not so subtly insulting other people as being worth less than their pets because they would rather spend the money to own a pet, rather than to give that money away to other people that needs it? 

    I think you just illustrated my point precisely. This isn't just a case of wasteful spending.

    The caption:
    "I have new watches! I'm supposed to have four watches since I have four long legs," the caption reads, as translated by Shanghaiist. "But that seems too tuhao so I kept it down to two, which totally fits my status. Do you have one?"

    But the ideologues on this forum MUST defend the accumulation of wealth, even when the owner is using it to taunt and insult the vast majority of the population. What's your "status"? A wise bourgeoisie would distance itself from such an ugly sentiment.
Sign In or Register to comment.