My blood boils...

[StoneMtn]

You feel cynical because of Hobbes. That was his point, which he summed up nicely on Page 1 of The Leviathan, but then found it necessary to ramble on for a million more pages. Sure, people suck; we get it. There's still room for improvement.

Also, I don't agree that the fact that humans are too fallible to adhere to the Categorical Imperative is a reason that it is not viable. Rather, I see it as an ideal to which we should aspire. If we choose any other ideal I know of, we are going down a less-ethical road. (Well, maybe John Rawls, but I see his "Original Position" Theory as essentially an application of Kant, anyway.)

I'm not trying to put you in the Hot Seat, my friend. If I didn't think you had a valuable opinion I wouldn't bother (especially considering I should be doing actual legal work as I write this). I value your input, and I tend to enjoy the fact that you and I seem to come from very different positions. I do appreciate, though, that you don't study philosophy, and that we have been speaking of fairly different topics up to now.

[popo weenie]

[color:blue]I really wish I had've donated my money elsewhere

sad to say but the red cross is not good here for giving it to the right place

i only go with the salvation army

the red cross has too many pockets to fill

and they mostly have a jacket on for every one to see hah a big joke

[Steve from Cleveland]

You feel cynical because of Hobbes. That was his point, which he summed up nicely on Page 1 of The Leviathan, but then found it necessary to ramble on for a million more pages. Sure, people suck; we get it. There's still room for improvement.

Indeed... He IS longwinded, isn't he? And, no I feel cynical not just because of Hobbes, but also because I personally feel like the whole ethical debate is disturbingly moot... It is clear to me that we need some system of law to enforce the 'common good' while at the same time, it is clear that having such a system does nothing to encourage people to follow it. Furthermore having a system of ethics does not generate ethical behavior... That's why I feel cynical.

I'm not trying to put you in the Hot Seat, my friend. If I didn't think you had a valuable opinion I wouldn't bother (especially considering I should be doing actual legal work as I write this). I value your input, and I tend to enjoy the fact that you and I seem to come from very different positions.

I understand, and apologize if I'm being defensive. I would be interested to get your opinion on the 'coherence approach' to ethics, as is similarly used in epistemology, which you have summarily ignored I wonder why you feel the need to align yourself with only ONE ethical system, when (in my opinion) many have valuable aspects to them... For example, Utilitarianism on its face sounds great, and I DO believe there is some value to doing what's best for the most. Unfortunately, sometimes it requires abhorrent acts to get us there, which is out of line with my overall (but not unwavering) belief that some things ought never be done.

Steve

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest

[popo weenie]

Just my 2 cents, and again, will probably be an unpopular view...[color:red]

i agree with you as he had to get that ring, and so smart to go to walmart my god some you cannot help eh?

i believe in giving to myself a lot now

that is what happens when you are ripped off one too many times ,sad to say but i love it

[popo weenie]

another nation), and they should have been able to handle this much more smoothly if the Iraq Attack was not currently underway.

[color:red]

that iraq thing is only sending a lot of dead bodys home ,sad sad

i really cannot understand or see any good what so ever so far from the war, a lot of tears for sure

[Kaidy Mae]

there is NO ONE theory that adequately solves all ethical quandries

True. But I wasn't discussing theories. I was commenting on how I think it's wrong to spend donated money on superfluous items. I think the majority of people would agree (both those who donated AND those who are spending their Red Cross money more effectively).

I'd be damn happy to get a card instead of waiting in lines all day to have the Red Cross handing out rations

Handing out rations would be far from ideal. Hell, if I were in that situation I’d hate to be treated like I could not be trusted. However, I would feel better knowing that more people were able to eat and be clothed because of such measures, as opposed to the “blessed†few.

Ollie, I hear what you're saying. The US may not be the richest nation on earth (but it is according to the Onion), but one that should certainly be self sufficient. My "selfish" comment was not in reference to Katrina, nor was it a reflexion of individuals I have met (and definitely not S from C). I was refering to the entire system as a whole. For the life of me, I just can't figure out why the US is in debt.

Polkaroo, isn't the $400 to Albertans supposed to be given out as part of Ralph Klein's retirement legacy? I thought I saw/heard something about that, but haven't had the time to look into it.

I was hoping this article would spur some debate here, and I'm glad it has. Steve, I really do value your opinions and can see a lot of merit in what you're saying. However, I've gotta keep arguing with you on this one. Too bad that we couldn't just sit down over drinks sometime and chat about issues such as this. I'm sure we'd solve the world's problems much quicker if we didn't have to type at the same time.

StoneMtn, move back to Ontario.

From now on I'm just going to send my money to BradM to help finance future great ideas.

[color:purple]I'm sure the marriage will be a happy, enjoyable one and that the ring will never end up in hock to purchase crack. I see nothing but rainbows and sunshine in their future and it's all because of a $2000 hand out and the help from some nice, white, rich folks Florida.

edit to add:

I fuckin' hated Hobbes. The philosophical equivalent to Charles Dickens. Bah! Okay, back to work.

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest
fuckin Leviathan *shakes fist*

[StoneMtn]

Steve:

I take your point. I also agree that we can't ignore utilitarianism. In fact, I think I'm understanding you better now. If I'm correct, you're saying that Kantian ethics is too much of an ideal, and we should strive for utilitarianism instead as it's more practical.

I think we might be on the same page here, but speaking in different ways. While I see Kant's ethics as an ideal to which we should strive, I also think we can't get there because of utilitarianism. On that basis, I see room for a combination of the two, and I think that is what you mean when you refer to "coherence".

The point at which I think we diverge is the idea of committing abhorrent acts to achieve an ethical goal. I don't agree there. I do not think the ends justify the means, BUT I welcome an example when that may be true. I just can't think of one. (Please don't suggest Iraq.)

[Esau]

Heres somthing that probally won't cool any boiling blood.

Heres an abstract below,posted on another board,For several more articles, about the investigation see the link below.

FEMA spending a disaster?

Review: Agency gave millions to people who didn't need assistance

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Sunday, September 18, 2005

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The federal government's mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe is only the latest bungling in a national disaster response system that for years has been fraught with waste and fraud.

A South Florida Sun-Sentinel investigation has found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency in five years poured at least $330 million into communities that were spared the devastating effects of fires, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes.

In the country's poorest inner-city neighborhoods, disaster assistance is considered an entitlement. Taxpayer money meant to help victims recover from catastrophes instead has gone to thousands of people who suffered little or no damage, including:

# $5.2 million to Los Angeles-area residents for the 2003 wildfires that burned more than 25 miles away;

# $168.5 million to Detroit residents for a 2000 rainstorm that an official with the city's water and sewage department doesn't even remember; and

# $21.6 million in clothing losses alone to Cleveland residents for a 2003 storm that brought less than 1.5 inches of rain.

The Sun-Sentinel first exposed fraud and waste in federal disaster aid in Florida last year, when FEMA distributed $31 million in Hurricane Frances relief to Miami-Dade County residents who experienced no hurricane conditions. U.S. senators and federal auditors, reacting to those reports, feared similar problems had occurred in disasters throughout the country.

The newspaper examined 20 of the 313 disasters declared by FEMA from 1999 through 2004, selecting cities where the agency's inspectors said they had encountered large-scale fraud. Of the $1.2 billion FEMA paid in those disasters, 27 percent went to areas where official reports showed only minor damage or none at all, the Sun-Sentinel found.

"It's so disturbing because we have urgent needs to help individuals who truly are the victims of disasters," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "I think it erodes public support for disaster assistance when there is a pattern of wasteful and abusive spending."

As chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Collins investigated FEMA's Miami-Dade payments and is now leading a congressional inquiry into the federal response to Katrina.

FEMA declined to answer questions about the findings.

"Disaster assistance is provided at the specific request of a governor and we are constantly evaluating our programs," FEMA spokeswoman Nicol D. Andrews said in an e-mail. "While always mindful of the generosity of the nation's taxpayers, FEMA's first priority remains the health and safety of disaster victims."

In impoverished neighborhoods from California to the Carolinas, from Florida to Michigan, the newspaper found the same patterns. Residents call FEMA assistance "free money," "easy money" and "mobility money." Scamming FEMA is widely known and openly discussed.

In Cleveland's recreation centers, barbershops and day-care centers, residents said people hauled old clothes and furniture into their basements and told FEMA the items were damaged by flooding from the 2003 storm. City officials documented 73 homes with minor damage, yet the federal government gave 28,500 Cleveland-area residents $41.4 million.

"We didn't have much flooding in the city," said Tom Marsalis, deputy commissioner of Cleveland's Division of Water Pollution Control. "Basically, that was a normal storm for us."

Julie Cobb, 37, whose southeast Cleveland neighborhood received $6.6 million from FEMA, said, "All you had to do was tell FEMA stuff was ruined and they'd send you a check.

"If you had a little water in the basement, you could throw some stuff down there and get some money for it," Cobb said.

In Baton Rouge, FEMA was a familiar and welcome sight long before the Louisiana capital was inundated with Katrina evacuees. In 2002, Hurricane Lili damaged small towns on the bayous but spared Baton Rouge, about 70 miles inland. Yet FEMA gave $15.4 million to 13,714 parish residents in and around Baton Rouge.

On front porches and in grocery stores, word spread of a government handout that came without hassles.

"Oh, man, it's easy," Elias Chaney, 49, of Baton Rouge, said neighbors told him. "Get you a new TV. Get your own sofa set. Ain't no red tape."

Baton Rouge residents told the Sun-Sentinel of neighbors ripping siding off their homes to fake storm damage and then repairing it after FEMA inspectors left. Chaney said he knew of people passing broken televisions from one applicant to another, each claiming the TV and telling the government it had been ruined by the storm.

In Los Angeles after the 2003 wildfires in surrounding areas, smoke was the key. Tell FEMA that smoke ruined your TV, got in your clothes, messed up the paint job on your car, residents said.

"All you've got to do is say something was damaged," said Tasha Williams, a 26-year-old mother of three and tenant of Imperial Courts, a public-housing development in the Watts section of Los Angeles. "It's free money."

FEMA gave out checks, some for almost $9,000, to Los Angeles-area residents.

"If it had been our program and the same thing had occurred, I would have started an investigation because clearly something went haywire," said Dallas Jones, former director of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services.

In Michigan, a September 2000 storm flooded thousands of homes in the suburbs south of Detroit. State records in support of a presidential disaster declaration do not mention any problems within Detroit city limits, and local water officials reported no spike in complaints for flooding or sewer backups.

FEMA's response -- $168.5 million to 87,624 Detroit residents -- turned into one of the "largest individual assistance declarations in U.S. history," a Michigan state report noted.

"I would describe something like that as being catastrophic," said George W. Ellenwood, spokesman for the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department. "I'm sitting here and thinking, 'Why don't we remember this?'"

After Hurricane Frances left Florida last year, the storm pounded the mountains and foothills of western North Carolina with up to 17 inches of rain, washing out roads and bridges, wrecking homes and triggering mudslides.

Yet residents in six counties in the southeastern part of the state known as the Coastal Plain region -- 200 miles away -- received more than half the $21 million FEMA awarded statewide.

"There was a lot of fraud," said David L. Carter, emergency management director in Robeson County in southeastern North Carolina. "I'll tell you, there was a lot of fraud."

So much money poured into neighboring Bladen County that used car dealers and clothing stores placed signs in their windows that read, "We take FEMA checks," said County Commissioner Delilah Blanks.

FEMA aid covers only uninsured losses and tends to be most heavily concentrated in poorer communities, where it can be a huge windfall. Unlike other government programs such as food stamps, where recipients get debit cards that can be used only for approved items, FEMA has traditionally handed out checks for up to $25,600.

FEMA determines the amount based on losses reported by applicants and approved by inspectors. Recipients are told to repair or replace items lost, but FEMA rarely follows up to see how the money was spent.

In Cedric Finley's northeast Cleveland neighborhood, "Everybody was getting checks," he recalled.

"They bought cars. They bought TVs. They bought wine. They bought ----," said Finley, a 32-year-old day laborer.

Chaney, of Baton Rouge, described FEMA as a "blessing" to poor people who struggle daily to buy food and pay their bills. "I guess some people saw an opportunity," he said.

That opportunity has been known to FEMA for at least four years. In testimony before Congress after he took over FEMA in 2001, Joe Allbaugh cautioned that federal disaster assistance had evolved into "an oversized entitlement program."

Allbaugh's successor, former FEMA Director Michael Brown, denied any widespread problems, even after the U.S. Senate committee and federal auditors blasted his agency's Hurricane Frances payments in Miami-Dade and 16 residents there were charged with fraud.

"It's a pretty darn good track record," Brown told CNN in July.

Under a barrage of criticism for his agency's failings in its Katrina relief efforts, Brown resigned his post last Monday after being relieved of his duties and sent back to Washington.

FEMA Spent Hundreds of Millions On Fraudulent Claims

[Kaidy Mae]

Under a barrage of criticism for his agency's failings in its Katrina relief efforts, Brown resigned his post last Monday after being relieved of his duties and sent back to Washington.

Anyone know what Brown's up to in Washington?

[Sunshine]

I'm not agreeing that buying a ring was the right thing to do;

however, for someone who's probably not that intelligent, maybe he thought by giving his girlfriend/ new mom a ring for "hope" that there is future. These people lost everything, and maybe in a state of shock he just wanted to show his lady that there will be a family for their child.

I don't know. It makes me sad. I'm just trying to find a positive for a situation none of us could truly understand.

[Deeps]

Under a barrage of criticism for his agency's failings in its Katrina relief efforts, Brown resigned his post last Monday after being relieved of his duties and sent back to Washington.

Anyone know what Brown's up to in Washington?

He "resigned"! ... such a pony boy dumb-dumb-ass-hat.

Post with link to CBC Article on Brown's resignation. .... Stilla pony-boy-ass-bite.

[Kaidy Mae]

Yeah, but I don't know why "resigning" (be it forced or not) has resulted in him going to Washington. Sounds like one of Dubya's promotions to me.

Sorry Deeps, no time to read the article before I responded. I'll take a peek tomorrow. I'm outta here! :thumbup:

[Steve from Cleveland]

I take your point. I also agree that we can't ignore utilitarianism. In fact, I think I'm understanding you better now. If I'm correct, you're saying that Kantian ethics is too much of an ideal, and we should strive for utilitarianism instead as it's more practical.

Well, no, not really... I'm saying that we shouldn't strive for ONE particular ideal over another... I'm also suggesting that we take positive aspects of many systems, and combine them in a coherent, pragmatic (by this I mean something that works) approach to ethics.

I think we might be on the same page here, but speaking in different ways. While I see Kant's ethics as an ideal to which we should strive, I also think we can't get there because of utilitarianism. On that basis, I see room for a combination of the two, and I think that is what you mean when you refer to "coherence".

Yes, this is what I am getting at... But talking about more than JUST utilitarianism or kantianinsm.

The point at which I think we diverge is the idea of committing abhorrent acts to achieve an ethical goal. I don't agree there. I do not think the ends justify the means, BUT I welcome an example when that may be true. I just can't think of one. (Please don't suggest Iraq.)

Nope... We don't diverge here as much as you might think... I think you misread what I was saying... Let me re-quote and boldify for emphasis...

For example, Utilitarianism on its face sounds great, and I DO believe there is some value to doing what's best for the most. Unfortunately, sometimes it requires abhorrent acts to get us there, which is out of line with my overall (but not unwavering) belief that some things ought never be done.

And of course, I will not suggest Iraq. For a number of reasons... Mainly because I don't see how it applies in this case.

I will propose this hypothetical, which I'm sure you have heard before. I ONLY bring this up because of my comment that my overall belief is that some things ought NEVER be done, but it is not unwavering, because cases like the following do give me pause with respect to that view...

Long story short... Terrorist-type has planted a Nuclear device somewhere in the middle of Toronto. It is known that he planted it, and has admitted both that he is responsible, and that he knows both where it is, and how to disarm it. Knowing that it is against Canadian policy to torture prisoners, under interrogation he says "You'll have to torture me to get the information you want." Doesn't it at least seem REASONABLE to question the maxim 'NEVER torture ANYONE for any reason' in this situation. If you do torture him, he will (admittedly) give the information you need to save MILLIONS... If you don't they die.

This is one example of where Utilitarian arguments give me pause, because it seems that the greater good at least MIGHT be served by comitting an abhorent act. Ultimately, I DO subscribe to the belief that some things ought NEVER be done. But in this case, it's hard to take such a hard-line approach, isn't it?

Steve

Kaidy Mae,

I appreciate your comments... I do respect your points, too, I just have a hard time saying that the guy did something immoral, since they were told to use the cards as they see fit, basically. Would I have done that? No. Would YOU have? Certainly not... But do I understand how this crack-head might? Yes, I can...

And you are very correct. We do need to sit down sometime and have some drinks (although mine will be non-alcoholic ) and discuss many things. We could probably solve at LEAST one or two problems...

Steve/Cleve

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest
Fix up some quote issues

[Steve from Cleveland]

Anyone know what Brown's up to in Washington?

[color:purple]I'm sure whatever it is, Brownie's doing a teriffic job

[PalacePrincess]

i agree with steve's original post on this.

the red cross didn't put many restrictions on what those cards can be used for.

sometimes in the face of disaster people need a little sense of normalcy for their own personal sanity. if getting your hair done is one thing that is going to keep you from going over the edge, one thing that will help you feel like a human being again, than who am i to judge you? a million boxes of kraft dinner isn't going to do much good if you can't even pick yourself up in the morning.

kaidy, the money you personally donated, probably went to the 99% of the people who are using the cards properly. the people you should want to kill are the ones who aren't even hurricane disaster victims that are getting their hands on these cards (as i read in another article).

and one more thought on this, i really don't think spending that money on an engagement ring is all that dumb. diamonds don't depreciate. they have basically just put that $600 away to be spent later on. it may not be what i personally would have spent red cross money on, but it's a hell of a lot better than spending it on crack.

[SmoothedShredder]

I think this thread gives alot of hope for the future... good debate everyone!!! HIGHFIVE!!!

[StoneMtn]

I will propose this hypothetical, which I'm sure you have heard before. I ONLY bring this up because of my comment that my overall belief is that some things ought NEVER be done, but it is not unwavering, because cases like the following do give me pause with respect to that view...

Long story short... Terrorist-type has planted a Nuclear device somewhere in the middle of Toronto. It is known that he planted it, and has admitted both that he is responsible, and that he knows both where it is, and how to disarm it. Knowing that it is against Canadian policy to torture prisoners, under interrogation he says "You'll have to torture me to get the information you want." Doesn't it at least seem REASONABLE to question the maxim 'NEVER torture ANYONE for any reason' in this situation. If you do torture him, he will (admittedly) give the information you need to save MILLIONS... If you don't they die.

Okay, that's a tough one. (And I've actually not heard that one before.) On the face of it I have no answer right now. I'll think about this one when I'm not at work. Hopefully, I'll have something intelligent to say later on.

Good one, BTW. :thumbup:

Princess: I think the part that annoys people is not that the 600 bucks was wasted. You're right. He could sell the ring. I think that the intent was to give these people money for IMMEDIATE assistance, though. If this person is putting his 600 bucks away for a rainy day, that is the opposite of what the donors had intended; I think. (However, as it is Kaidy Mae's blood that is currently boiling, I leave it to her to confirm or refute that.)

[bradm]

I saw an interview with Alan Dershowitz(sp?), who also brought up that scenario. While he's against torture, he realizes that it's going to happen, and wants it done by the (or a to-be-written) book, with a judge's order, stated procedures, etc. (I think he was talking more about general coercive techniques, including truth sera and the like, rather than just what people usually consider torture.)

He also notes that any evidence gathered that way would be inadmissable against the tortured in trial, but that doesn't prevent the government from using the information to save people.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

Aloha,

Brad

[Vermontdave]

I remember seeing that to Brad, and it did make me think. I believe, if I were the terrorist(which I'm not), and I was complicit in terrorist activity(which I'm not). I would be prepared to undergo any painful, degrading process that could be thrown at me.

The whole idea that inflicting physical/psycholgical pain will give a truthful response is purely speculative. I'd be hard pressed to believe otherwise.

peace

[Lazlo]

I'll tell you anything you want aslong as you hurt me good. Hot pokers, whips and shit.

[bradm]

I remember seeing that to Brad, and it did make me think. I believe, if I were the terrorist(which I'm not), and I was complicit in terrorist activity(which I'm not). I would be prepared to undergo any painful, degrading process that could be thrown at me.

The whole idea that inflicting physical/psycholgical pain will give a truthful response is purely speculative. I'd be hard pressed to believe otherwise.

peace

True, but torture (or coercion, e.g., using drugs) would be a component of a larger investigation, so any piece of information, however small, could be useful. Obviously a bad guy is going to do his best to avoid truthfully answering The Big Question, but other information he may let slip out, such as answers to The Little Questions, or even just random rambline, may prove useful as pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

Alright, well I do have a comment on that hypothetical, now that I'm not working...

I think this is a difficult hypothetical, because it ignores a few realities. Basically, those realities are that we simply cannot trust those in power to only use their power for the interests of the public good. (I start with that premise.) From there, I consider Chomsky's arguments against capital punishment, which essentially amount to the fact that we cannot, in good conscience, allow the government a legal reason for putting people to death. As soon as you allow something like that, the power is flouted or abused. (I am not speaking in hypotheticals now. There are many documented incidents of people being wrongfully put to death under state-sanction. There is exactly such an incident in the history of my own family, back in the day that Canada allowed such Draconian punishment.)

It is for the same reason as Chomsky argues against capital punishment that I am unable to condone state-mandated-torture for any reason.

Now, my comments do not apply exactly to Steveland's scenario, because we are to presume that all facts in that scenario are true, and this is an isolated incident. That is very artificial, though, when compared with "real life" where people are suspected of knowing or doing certain things, spirited away to other countries, and then tortured and held without charges indefinitely. I cannot condone that practice as a policy. It is far too open to abuse.

[hamilton]

On last night's episode of "Over There" the Iraqi prisoner spilled his guts after the American dude threatened to turn his sister over to the Pakistani Secret Service.

Of course, Steven Bochco is responsible for this show...

[Steve from Cleveland]

Indeed, I see your point StoneMtn...

However, as was the discussion, do you see how Utilitarianism seems to permit the torture in this case, while (I think) a Kantian approach might forbid it?

More importantly, do you see why I, in particular, have difficulty saying that some things ought NEVER be done? I mean, in my heart I DO believe this. And I also see that this scenario is kind of ridiculous. But still this is ONE example (at least) of where it seems like our hard-line approach to morality seems to fail us...

Again, this is why I subscribe to a coherence theory, because we are not limited by a system which (If we choose one that permits THIS act of torture) surely would alow OTHER abhorrent acts, and (If we choose one that forbids it) kills millions where the opportunity DOES exist to save them...

Sticky, sticky stuff... And why 'broad metaphysical ethics' is so difficult... It's hard to deal in ABSOLUTES. I mean just look at this example. MOST people would say torture is bad, and should NEVER be done. But in this case, those same people almost want to say, OK, well just this once...

I agree, great discussion, thus far!

Lovin' it!

Steve

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Woah - I can't imagine what fuckery I might instigate if I thought about the possibility of a sister ending up in the hands of the ISI - those are some pretty fucked up characters.

Getting into this thread so late, I can't possibly think about dealing with any decent proportion of the angles involved, but maybe I do have one thing to add. Ethics requires community and the sort of understanding (what Habermas, after Husserl, understands by "lifeworld") that comes from sorting out stuff together (morality, I've always understood, is your own personal stance on various issues). Does that really happen in the modernity we know today, or are we so divorced from one another that what applies in one sub-community has no real bearing on another, whatever our supposed "common humanity"?

Back in the days when I was an evangelical... there's no telling the sorts of things I would have condemned, from rote. Today, Bush, an evangelical, can comfortably order the slaughter of innocents, with every (utilitarian) moral or ethical justification that can be drafted up within that context. Sure, there are still all kinds of activity that arouse my panic, terror, and outrage, close to or far from home, and some of those feelings are residual from the days of evangelical conditioning, but some are the result, I'd like to think, of some quickening of my own authentic moral centre of gravity. How do I translate that into an ethic? Only via other people I relate to. And that kind of thing is going on all the time, whenever I deal with people in real time, out of real, and often surprisingly new, experiences.

So what would I say to buddy who blew all that money on some piece of rock (and let's leave aside for the moment the whole question of where the fuck diamonds come from and at what cost) for a girl he's snogging? I'd say, Buddy, who do you belong with, if anyone? And how are you going to help them? If he really doesn't give a rat's ass about them, and cares only about how much he's going to impress said girl, then I'd wish him luck and cut the rope. If she's that important to him, to the exclusion of anybody else, then good luck to them both.

Ok, that seems a bit nasty and impatient. On second thought, I think I'd try to dose them instead and get them to think about it in that frame of mind as well....