Sorry, I didnt create an argument. The premise of the video is that "greed can be good". You responded before me to refute that notion, all the while owning a costly example of material excess that makes any anti-greed position ring hollow. In fact, other posters pointed out this discrepancy before I did. I guess they are crazy too?
I know and accept who I am, and I am at peace with it. I do not pretend to be anything else. How that makes me delusional, I'm not sure.
You may dislike my reference of accepted, standardized definitions for words. I did not construct these definitions.
If a word that could be used to define you is in conflict with the image of yourself that you wish to present to others, shooting the messenger, or disputing the actual definition of the word does not a compelling argument make.
I am trying to point out, as others have in this thread, that people (such as you and I) who own such expensive examples of automotive excess have no justification disparaging the greed of others, especially in a sanctimonius way.
If you feel strongly that the message in the original Donahue video is harmful, fair enough, I respect that. Why not put your money where your mouth is, sell the car, get something else, and donate the difference. Otherwise, the hypocrisy suggests that your true feelings, and what you want others to believe about you, are not the same. It does nothing to support the message that greed is bad. You may not like my stated beliefs, but you'll be hard pressed to find me acting in a way that disagrees with them.
It's like when Obama claims Romney is an enemy of the disadvantaged, and yet Obama has donated a smaller amount to charity than Romney (both as a percentage of his income, and in raw dollars).
Not sure why liberals have such a hard time putting their money where their mouth is.