You can skip to 0:45 for the titular event.

That hurts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love the Gallardo. It's one of the most beautiful cars I've ever seen. And it's a crappy Lambo that's been redesigned by German engineers, so like they put it on Top Gear: "It's like a Lamborghini, but the air-conditioning works."

However, I love the fact that it's properly pronounced: "gay-ardo." I just picture all these macho dicks, driving around in their yellow sports car, showing off, yet trying desperately to ignore the fact that when they were at the dealership, everyone kept saying how great they would look, "In your new 'Gay-ardo!' That 'Gay-ardo' looks great on you! It's like the 'Gay-ardo' was made for you!"

In fact, I'd bet that at dealerships here in America, they're probably forbidden from using the proper pronunciation. Can't you just picture it? "I know guys, but if we pronounce it that way, we're never going to attract the macho-dickhead customers that keep us in business..."

Some guys will argue to the death about the proper pronunciation of "Jaguar", but there seems to be an unspoken agreement among most Lambo fans that a Gallardo is a "Gall-ardo".

I would've given anything if they drove by the accident in the video and said: "Man, that's a shame, it's such a beautiful 'Gay-ardo'." Of course, for all I know, the guy is comfortable in his sexuality, but I doubt it.

http://videosift.com/video/Ryan-Reynolds-Im-a-Horrible-Driver-but-hes-very-funny

Jaguar pronunciation discussed in this vid. If you are interested @Ryjkyj

But why would you not pronounce an Italian word... the correct way?

Lamborghini + Show Off (always) = Fail

Having the turn signal on shoulda been the first clue that this driver was an unskilled rookie =oD

That just makes me happy:
* Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
* Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
* Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.

Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Just to add to the commentary; pronunciation of Lamborghini Gallardo here.

*Schadenfreude

>> ^Gallowflak:

You can skip to 0:45 for the titular event.


The conversation set up works though. It's not bad dialogue -- discussing the straight away then remarking on the turn signal. Maybe I just take pleasure in eavesdropping.

>> ^spoco2:

That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.


Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^spoco2:
That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."


Really? You're going to try to justify people who spend the price of a house on a car, and then have no idea how to drive it? That's the line you're going to take? Because it's pretty indefensible.

I'm never going to say "I have the money to buy a Lamborghini". I seriously doubt I'll ever have that much disposable cash. If I did have huge sums of cash, I would quite like to have a nice car, sure, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper than a lambo though. And I also wouldn't act like a dick and rev the engine while sitting at the lights, before trying to show off the 'raw power' of my manly machine. I don't see how people can justify that much money on a vehicle that has 2 seats and where 95% of its power is unusable due to it never being safe to drive at full speed. It's retarded.

Do I suppose then that you have bought a really expensive dick replacement car? Or do you just lust after them?

Consider this my downvote. Some dude made an expensive mistake going around a corner. So fucking what? How was he "showing off"?

So who here has actually driven a supercar? I'm sure you're all expert drivers who've never had a single accident. Yeah, he took the corner a little fast, but nowhere near "showing off". It's bloody easy to spin out a car that powerful.

and who fucking cares if it called a "gay-ardo"? It's an awesome looking car, and I bet it's really nice to drive too.

I fail to see how buying a nice car automatically makes someone a dick.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^spoco2:
That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."

Really? You're going to try to justify people who spend the price of a house on a car, and then have no idea how to drive it? That's the line you're going to take? Because it's pretty indefensible.
I'm never going to say "I have the money to buy a Lamborghini". I seriously doubt I'll ever have that much disposable cash. If I did have huge sums of cash, I would quite like to have a nice car, sure, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper than a lambo though. And I also wouldn't act like a dick and rev the engine while sitting at the lights, before trying to show off the 'raw power' of my manly machine. I don't see how people can justify that much money on a vehicle that has 2 seats and where 95% of its power is unusable due to it never being safe to drive at full speed. It's retarded.
Do I suppose then that you have bought a really expensive dick replacement car? Or do you just lust after them?

How people spend their money is their business, and requires no justification from anyone. Also, how do you know it was not the first time this person had driven it and underestimated its power? You say you would like to buy a nicer car. Well, it's ALL relative, because a guy, even lower down the food chain than you, may find YOUR choice indefensible. Tell you what, why don't we all buy the same car and srew individuality. As for me? I aspire to an Aston Martin and, no, it won't be a "dick replacement." Actually, you are quite fond of the word "dick" so you really should quit while you are behind, because with each sentence you reaffirm that you are one.

@A10anis : It's all relative until you're spending more than the mean house price in your country ON A CAR.
@ChaosEngine : See previous statement.

>> ^spoco2:

@A10anis : It's all relative until you're spending more than the mean house price in your country ON A CAR.
@ChaosEngine : See previous statement.


What difference does that make? If you can afford it, and you're not screwing people over to do so, buy whatever the fuck you want.

Or does this anti-luxury item only extend to cars? What about a boat? or art? I guess whoever paid eleventy squillion for a painting (it doesn't even do anything! you can look at a copy of it on the web) must be a complete ass.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^spoco2:
@A10anis : It's all relative until you're spending more than the mean house price in your country ON A CAR.
@ChaosEngine : See previous statement.

What difference does that make? If you can afford it, and you're not screwing people over to do so, buy whatever the fuck you want.
Or does this anti-luxury item only extend to cars? What about a boat? or art? I guess whoever paid eleventy squillion for a painting (it doesn't even do anything! you can look at a copy of it on the web) must be a complete ass.

I am in total agreement with you (Read my posts). Spoco2, having lost the argument, has attributed HIS comment to me, which is pretty desperate of him.

Something something something glass houses.>> ^A10anis:


Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This also warms the cockles of my dark, schaedenfreude encrusted heart.

Absurd luxuries like these cost so much because of the amount of labour and resources that went into producing them. Labour and resources that could have been spent producing something worthwhile instead. When you buy a Lamborghini you're making the world worse for everyone. Owning a Lamborghini is a crime against humanity.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!

Was that a Jesus cross on the mirror? How Christian of them.

>> ^Nickerd:

Was that a Jesus cross on the mirror? How Christian of them.


thanks for reminding me why I stopped reading user comments on the sift

>> ^gorillaman:

Absurd luxuries like these cost so much because of the amount of labour and resources that went into producing them. Labour and resources that could have been spent producing something worthwhile instead. When you buy a Lamborghini you're making the world worse for everyone. Owning a Lamborghini is a crime against humanity.


Cost of raising a child in the US: $220,000

List price of a Gallardo: $198,000

As far as I'm concerned, your parents could have spent the money on producing something worthwhile instead of having you.

You act as though the labour and resources went into a black hole. Engineers were employed, research was done, factories were built, money was made and families were fed.

A crime against humanity? Are you seriously comparing owning a fucking car to this, or this or this? I really hope you're joking.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You act as though the labour and resources went into a black hole. Engineers were employed, research was done, factories were built, money was made and families were fed.
A crime against humanity? Are you seriously comparing owning a fucking car to this, or this or this? I really hope you're joking.

This is the broken window fallacy.

At least mass murder is good for the environment. Burning the equivalent of five man-years of labour on one car just to feed your vanity, and making the whole world poorer in the process, is a pure evil.

@gorillaman, uh... the broken window fallacy doesn't seem to apply here because manufacturing Lamborghinis is actually profitable, it's completely voluntary (people are free to do more productive things than build or buy a Lamborghini, if they want) and there's no destruction of someone else's property in that process. Unlike mass murder, wars or breaking a window.

You clearly consider yourself better than most people when it comes to directing humanity's resources, maybe you should run for office.

>> ^renatojj:
uh... the broken window fallacy doesn't seem to apply here because manufacturing Lamborghinis is actually profitable, it's completely voluntary (people are free to do more productive things than build or buy a Lamborghini, if they want) and there's no destruction of someone else's property in that process. Unlike mass murder, wars or breaking a window.
You clearly consider yourself better than most people when it comes to directing humanity's resources, maybe you should run for office.


Paying $200,000 for a sports car is comparable to paying five people $40,000 each to spend a year digging and refilling holes. Nothing of value has been produced, five man-years of human productivity have been destroyed; it's economic vandalism.

@gorillaman, if you pay $200,000 for a Lamborghini, you end up with a Lamborghini. I'm sure some people think a Lamborghini is valuable, otherwise they wouldn't pay $200,000 for it.

Now go find someone willing to dump $200,000 to pay five people to dig and refill holes. Not so valuable.

You can compare anything to paying people to dig and fill up holes and call it economic vandalism, check this out:

Building the empire state building took 40 million dollars in the 30's, that's like paying 1000 people $40,000 each to spend a year digging and refilling holes. Nothing of value has been produced. You just end up with a tall pile of concrete and glass that is in no way distinguishable from thousands of holes in the ground filled with dirt.

>> ^renatojj:
if you pay $200,000 for a Lamborghini, you end up with a Lamborghini. I'm sure some people think a Lamborghini is valuable, otherwise they wouldn't pay $200,000 for it.
Now go find someone willing to dump $200,000 to pay five people to dig and refill holes. Not so valuable.
You can compare anything to paying people to dig and fill up holes and call it economic vandalism, check this out:
Building the empire state building took 40 million dollars in the 30's, that's like paying 1000 people $40,000 each to spend a year digging and refilling holes. Nothing of value has been produced. You just end up with a tall pile of concrete and glass that is in no way distinguishable from thousands of holes in the ground filled with dirt.


A $200,000 sports car has essentially the same value as a $1000 second-hand runaround. They both perform the same functions at about the same efficiency, except the old banger gets better mileage and probably breaks down less. The only people who see more value in the Lamborghini are animalistic simpletons who can't control their instinctive compulsion to flaunt status symbols.

Is this your guiding social principle? Whichever endeavours produce something shiny enough to enflame the passion of a five year old are worthwhile? Dollars spent on pet grooming do not have an equivalent economic benefit as dollars spent on communications infrastructure. This naive doctrine of 'everything has value that can tempt enough morons into paying for it' has to be destroyed.

@gorillaman a good guiding social principle is not imposing one's values on others, specially when it comes to money. Do you like that one?

Do you think it's worth it for society to pay with more discontent and oppression so you can have power over their money, and choose their jobs, and endeavors, so you can make decisions that are better for the economy according to your superior ideals and values?

I guess their sacrifice is a price you're willing to pay, am I right?

They really should have stayed and given the video to the police...

>> ^mizila:

They really should have stayed and given the video to the police...


Don't think they needed to, seeing that five billion people witnessed the accident.

>> ^renatojj:

a good guiding social principle is not imposing one's values on others, specially when it comes to money. Do you like that one?
Do you think it's worth it for society to pay with more discontent and oppression so you can have power over their money, and choose their jobs, and endeavors, so you can make decisions that are better for the economy according to your superior ideals and values?
I guess their sacrifice is a price you're willing to pay, am I right?


That's a terrible principle; it's anarchy. We don't all have the right to fly about doing whatever we want at any cost to society.

We live on a desperately crowded and impoverished world surrounded by a desert that goes on forever. There aren't enough resources on earth to fully satisfy even one person's desires, let alone seven billion. Efficiency and restraint are moral necessities.

@gorillaman, I'm sure that the harsh reality of the world may force people to make decisions they don't want to. However, it's more efficient to let people figure out what these decisions should be than force them to leave these decisions to someone else. What you truly resent is the economic problem, even though the problem itself is not solved any better with planning than it is in a freely cooperative environment.

>> ^renatojj:
I'm sure that the harsh reality of the world may force people to make decisions they don't want to. However, it's more efficient to let people figure out what these decisions should be than force them to leave these decisions to someone else. What you truly resent is the economic problem, even though the problem itself is not solved any better with planning than it is in a freely cooperative environment.


It's axiomatically not more efficient to leave every decision to the individual. Stupid people make bad choices. Stupid people en masse make bad choices. Like building Lamborghinis. Freedom in an economic context is another word for apocalypse.

The sole problem with centrally planning an entire economy is it's much, much too difficult. Until we can engineer better brains for the job the obvious strategy is to take your 'freely cooperative environment' as a foundation and introduce as many control interventions as realistically achievable. Like stopping stupid people from building Lamborghinis.

@gorillaman hmm, maybe you should apply that thinking to freedom of expression too.

Let's give people the freedom to say what they want, and create as many controls and censorships as is realistically achievable, think of the possibilities. We could lead society by the nose straight to better ways of thinking, abandon religion entirely (or "fully embrace christianity", if that's your thing), and not waste any more time dabbling with stupid ideologies, we could educate entire generations with the Truth, whatever it may be, whatever we decide it should be, and help mankind evolve. Efficiently.

Stupid people make bad choices regarding their ideas. Freedom in the ideological context is another word for apocalypse.

Right?

@renatojj

Your claim is that economic anarchy is more efficient than any system of rational control, and I say this must be false.

It's naive to presume that mutually beneficial agreements between individuals necessarily prove beneficial on a wider social scale; many economic transactions will benefit all directly involved parties while catastrophically harming others.

Ethically, it is appropriate to intervene in these transactions between free individuals where harm will come to a third party, especially where that third party is your whole society. Social harm is caused by production of frivolous luxuries like sports cars, both in terms of squandered labour that could have been used to enrich mankind and depletion of finite resources that belong to everybody. Everything from oil to aluminium is communal property; we all have equal claim to what's in our earth.

Even assuming their ability to do so, it ought to be obvious that wherever each individual has to make their own social benefit analysis of a transaction instead of referring to an authority; that is an immense, inefficient, duplication of effort. In such cases, the cost of servicing ones responsibilities may outweigh the gain in freedoms.

Freedom to hurt others is not a desirable condition. There is a school of thought that suggests preventing a murder is a violation of the rights of the murderer; I would hope you don't subscribe to that view.

Regarding ideological freedom, from which freedom of expression is quite distinct and unequivocally desirable - Yes, I oppose it for the same reasons.

@gorillaman, ok, so people should be free to express their ideas, but not free to have different ideas or ideologies from each other. How does that work?

I love how you apply the word "anarchy" to the economy, as if the natural state of things is not people independently trading with each other, but government ownership and control of all the world's resources, when in fact most of what happens in the world's economy is in such a tremendously vast and complex scale that I can't imagine a single entity keeping track of all that, let alone coordinating it.

I can only imagine, though, how incredibly immoral and oppressive such a world would be. Something like Soviet Russia? I'm sure they had their own standards of efficiency, and hell yeah, the soviets were pretty efficient at sending a man into orbit, making nuclear bombs, nuclear submarines... not so much at erradicating poverty though, or not completely enslaving and slowly starving millions of people, or avoiding the total collapse of their economy.

If you're so worried about harm to third parties, how about the catastrophe of having a third party meddling with every economic transaction? That's TWO parties being directly harmed right there, for every single transaction. Is that a catastrophe worth mentioning?

@renatojj

Morally, ideology and action are indistinguishable. Will you say everyone should be free to act in absolutely any way we want? Then why believe whatever we want? All evil that doesn't stem directly from our universe's general poverty or ridiculous physical laws is due to defective ideologies on various scales. The reality of Soviet Russia didn't materialise from nothing; ideology spawned its every detail.

The natural state of things is people bashing each others heads in and stealing their stuff. Modern economic practice may be considered a somewhat more sophisticated means of achieving the same end.

We're in complete agreement on the impossibility of centrally directing every economic event. Does that make all intervention impossible or even undesirable? As I wrote before, the reasonable approach is using the market in its wild condition as a starting point, then shaping and improving it where we can.

In its ideal form trade is a miraculous thing, two people can trade together and somehow both become richer. It's almost supernatural, but when the trick goes wrong and we start getting poorer instead it's necessary to take corrective action.

Absolute economic freedom is an excellent device where both of the following statements are true:

1. Every participant is a perfect intellect.
2. All resources are infinite, having only a time cost to harvest.

You know what I appreciate. @gorillaman and @renatojj are using the @ system instead of making copied replies and filling up the entire screen with useless shit.

This is how a discussion should be done.

I appreciate that fact.

@gorillaman so thinking about killing millions of jews is morally indistinguishable from actually killing millions of jews? I guess I'm morally a mass murderer then, lock me up because I just had the very thought formulating that last sentence.

Yes, coercion is part of the natural state of things, and it was also a commodity for trade, or do you think cooperation was absolutely impossible in an uncivilized world? Trade predates civization, before an institution or a group of men took it upon themselves to have a monopoly over coercion so the rest of society could trade without fraud and theft.

This "magic" behind two parties becoming richer in a trade is easily explainable:

Value is subjective.

What you insist in considering waste (Lamborghini?), is not what someone else considers waste.

Two parties become "richer" when they both give away things of less value to each of them in exchange for things of higher value for each of them.

I don't know what "absolute economic freedom" is, why you're making that up, or stating its supposedly impossible requirements.

More importantly, what's the point of arguing economic freedom with someone who doesn't even believe people should be allowed to think differently?

@renatojj

Value is not subjective given common assumptions. This is just tired old relativism being carted out to justify a distinctly non-relative belief. Rational individuals in the same circumstances will value the same things. Trade works because of differing circumstances, not relative value assessments. A baker has easier access to bread than his customers, so when he sells it at a fair price he becomes richer; he doesn't just inherently value bread less highly than everyone else.

A lot of worthless things predate civilisation. What I find baffling about this discussion is you're not willing to believe that free trade between individuals can have negative consequences for other people. In those cases, you must allow it is correct to intervene.

And yes, believing in, supporting and being capable of mass murder are identical with actually participating in it. Our actual physical actions are only trivial by-products of our thoughts; it is always the mentality that is accountable. Thinking differently is fine - thinking criminally is not.

@gorillaman understanding the subjective nature of value does not imply moral relativism, nor is it in any way detrimental to morality.

Morality is about choosing values, you can pick and choose all you like, it doesn't change the fact that values are subjective in the sense that they're not intrinsic to the object of value, they depend on the person/living being that assigns the value.

A baker does indeed value the bread he sells less than the money he wants in exchange for it, otherwise he would not see purpose in selling bread, he'd just hoard all his awesome bread to himself.

Differering circumstances are just one of the many things that may affect one's choice of values. You're not a fan of Lamborghinis, that can be for so many reasons. Maybe they're obvious to you, but your choice of values won't match that of a Lamborghini afficionado, or of a rich guy looking for a powerful status symbol. Who are you to consider your values any better than those of others when it comes to spending money?

I see that trade can be detrimental to a third party, but if there's no theft or destruction of someone else's actual property, treating that as a problem and trying to forcibly solve it by regulating or forbidding the trade is bound to cause more and bigger problems than the one you allegedly want to fix.

It's this lack of foresight that is so common among those who don't appreciate the evolving nature of freedom and competition.

Now you're saying you're not OK with "criminal" thoughts, but would you want to regulate thoughts? We can't directly mind control people, so can you even enforce that without infringing on freedom of expression? Do you think it's worth it to forcibly shape society's ideologies?

I proposed that ridiculous notion expecting you to repudiate it, I can at least appreciate the strong connection you make between personal and economic liberties. Too bad you apparently think we deserve neither.

@renatojj

You're being misled by subjectivity without accounting for the common set of axioms we all apply to allow us to exist in a more or less shared reality. The one great source of variability of value assessments is capacity for rational thought.

Given that we inhabit approximately similar perceptions; the difference between me and a Lamborghini aficionado is, and I'm forced to be blunt here, I am not an idiot. Any small variations of subjective experience are essentially noise, and likely as not to cancel each other out, compared to the influence of a rational organising mind.

Who are we to consider some values better than others? I'm sorry but deny it as you might this is utter, nihilistic relativism.

The resources used in the creation and maintenance of white elephants like Lamborghinis don't appear out of nowhere; they pre-exist, they're finite, and they belong to the world. Extraction companies are given 'ownership' not from any moral right but as payment for introducing these resources into the economy. That quasi-ownership is then transferred down the line to their eventual consumer. The arrangement can only be valid, however, where those resources are properly used to enrich mankind. Squandered on sports cars, how can you justify their consumption as anything other than a grand act of theft and vandalism?

...

If these posts have accomplished nothing else, I can at least say that having been forced to type it out so many times I will never forget how to spell Lamborghini.

@gorillaman Again, stating that values are subjective is in no way a statement about or against morality, it's about the nature of values. These two things don't oppose each other because they're statements about different things.

It's naïve and presumptuous of you to state that Lamborghinis are a waste to society when you're clearly treating your personal judgement as some superior standard. You carelessly dismiss a Lamborghini afficionado as an idiot because he has different values than you. Shouldn't your presumptuousness make you the idiot?

Resources are limited, and that's why we have prices. The economy is a better judge of what prices should be and controlling prices on a large scale is more often what leads to poverty and misalocation of resources in society, the exact things I suppose you don't like about waste.

All these "economic crimes" against society that you mentioned hinge on your delusional understanding that property is not a right, but a mere privilege that the "world" bestows upon individuals. There's the source of your backwards thinking. You're welcome.

@renatojj

Relativism, relativism.

Resources are limited, and that's why we must be accountable for their consumption. Your policy is for everyone to grab as much as they can and use it as fast as possible while hoping that somehow the great god-economy will sort it all out.

It won't. The economy is forever irrational and short sighted because people are irrational and short sighted. To leave ourselves at the mercy of such an arbitrary and ultimately primitive system really would be colossally, criminally irresponsible.

I'm going to suggest that the source of your own backwards thinking has been your lack of the basic human drive to order and improve on nature; the drive responsible for all progress throughout our history as a species.

* quality >> ^BoneRemake:

You know what I appreciate. @gorillaman and @renatojj are using the @ system instead of making copied replies and filling up the entire screen with useless shit.
This is how a discussion should be done.
I appreciate that fact.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lamborghini, traffic light, crash, spin, chicago' to 'lamborghini, traffic light, crash, spin, chicago, intersection, show off' - edited by lucky760

Don't Treat $100,000 Cars Like This has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760 on that post.