Prymaxe Vintage sucks, but let's talk about food too! :)

[onyxrhino]

I'd like to point out that "X is bad, but Y is also bad, and why is no one talking about Y when they're talking about X" amounts to nothing more than a red herring in polite discourse.

It is like a vegetarian giving a speech about how evil it is to eat meat while wearing their new leather shoes. Or a person who thinks child labor is horrible, and blogs about it on their iPad. People pick and chose the crusades that are convenient for them.

Yeah, I completely agree. I notice it all over the internet these days. And more than ever, people seem to get so hostile and angry about their cause. But when you point out someone doing even worse things or the same sort of thing on a broader scale, they don't even want to deal with it. They just want to hone in on one cause, get really indignant, and refuse to consider where it fits in the big picture. It's like there's a switch in people's brains these days, where they can ignore the stuff that is all around them, the evil practices of giant corporations and nations that they buy from every day, as long as they get to channel some hate towards an easy target.

Example? Please? I'd like an example of a similar company to Prymaxe so I can equally hate them.

As mentioned before in this thread, Amazon has similar business practices on a much much larger scale.

[Wes Mantooth]

I'd like to point out that "X is bad, but Y is also bad, and why is no one talking about Y when they're talking about X" amounts to nothing more than a red herring in polite discourse.

It is like a vegetarian giving a speech about how evil it is to eat meat while wearing their new leather shoes. Or a person who thinks child labor is horrible, and blogs about it on their iPad. People pick and chose the crusades that are convenient for them.

Yeah, I completely agree. I notice it all over the internet these days. And more than ever, people seem to get so hostile and angry about their cause. But when you point out someone doing even worse things or the same sort of thing on a broader scale, they don't even want to deal with it. They just want to hone in on one cause, get really indignant, and refuse to consider where it fits in the big picture. It's like there's a switch in people's brains these days, where they can ignore the stuff that is all around them, the evil practices of giant corporations and nations that they buy from every day, as long as they get to channel some hate towards an easy target.

That's like asking someone who lives in a city with polluted air why they are still breathing. Sometimes you have to play the shitty game and pick your battles, can't win everything.

[D.o.S.]

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

[Jwar]

I'd like to point out that "X is bad, but Y is also bad, and why is no one talking about Y when they're talking about X" amounts to nothing more than a red herring in polite discourse.

It is like a vegetarian giving a speech about how evil it is to eat meat while wearing their new leather shoes. Or a person who thinks child labor is horrible, and blogs about it on their iPad. People pick and chose the crusades that are convenient for them.

Yeah, I completely agree. I notice it all over the internet these days. And more than ever, people seem to get so hostile and angry about their cause. But when you point out someone doing even worse things or the same sort of thing on a broader scale, they don't even want to deal with it. They just want to hone in on one cause, get really indignant, and refuse to consider where it fits in the big picture. It's like there's a switch in people's brains these days, where they can ignore the stuff that is all around them, the evil practices of giant corporations and nations that they buy from every day, as long as they get to channel some hate towards an easy target.

Example? Please? I'd like an example of a similar company to Prymaxe so I can equally hate them.

As mentioned before in this thread, Amazon has similar business practices on a much much larger scale.

Amazon is a HUGE and I mean enormous company. They are like the Walmart of online shopping.

Prymaxe is small in comparison. Now you could compare them to someone like Rogue. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Not even close. Amazon no longer has a soul. LOL. Prymaxe could though if they chose to.

[Jwar]

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I love you.

[D.o.S.]

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I should point out, though, that it is a great way to discover whether or not people have any understanding of rhetoric and the finer points of dialectics, in that this strategy is usually enough to "win" an argument in a more conventional setting (i.e. with troglodytes) and will reliably get results with the aforementioned troglodytes even though it's nothing more than a scenic detour away from the discussion.

[onyxrhino]

Yeah, I completely agree. I notice it all over the internet these days. And more than ever, people seem to get so hostile and angry about their cause. But when you point out someone doing even worse things or the same sort of thing on a broader scale, they don't even want to deal with it. They just want to hone in on one cause, get really indignant, and refuse to consider where it fits in the big picture. It's like there's a switch in people's brains these days, where they can ignore the stuff that is all around them, the evil practices of giant corporations and nations that they buy from every day, as long as they get to channel some hate towards an easy target.

That's like asking someone who lives in a city with polluted air why they are still breathing. Sometimes you have to play the shitty game and pick your battles, can't win everything.

Your analogy doesn't really fit with what I just said. I was saying, isn't it strange that you are so angry about that hamburger wrapper laying on the sidewalk, but you're ignoring that the air around you is barely breathable? Isn't it strange that when I mention the air to you, you dismiss it with a non sequiter and then immediately go back to raging about that wrapper?

For clarification: I'm not talking about you particularly or even this thread particularly, it's just a phenomenon that seems to have become quite common all over the internet these days.

[onyxrhino]

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I should point out, though, that it is a great way to discover whether or not people have any understanding of rhetoric and the finer points of dialectics, in that this strategy is usually enough to "win" an argument in a more conventional setting (i.e. with troglodytes) and will reliably get results with the aforementioned troglodytes even though it's nothing more than a scenic detour away from the discussion.

Yes. I see. Name-calling is far better strategy for an effective conversation. Good point.

[Eivind August]

The biggest thing for me in the Prymaxe thing is that a large part of buying boutique is about the relationship with the builder. Man, half of the SSBS stuff I've bought is second hand, but I still follow Brian's posts and feel something different when playing my Fuck than when playing my Digitech Death Metal (which is irony aside my second favourite distortion of all time). So when the builders who I want to support and have a certain relationship with say "this is fucked" that is a powerful moral argument for me. And given the sense of community that exists at ILF that's why I think it gets pretty heated.

This is really spot on for me. I mean, there are loads of booteek companies out there, I could probably get all the sounds I need from some JHS and Lovepedal pedals. Still, I choose to support people that I identify with, something I think all humans are prone to. Fuzzhugger, ss/bs etc. do it for me, so I buy from them. Yes, it's naive to think you're "friends" with companies, but I at least want to deal with people I regard as good dudes. And guess what, Prymaxe aren't good dudes in my opinion. So I won't support them. No, I won't support Amazon either, but that is besides the point. I could probably make a long list of companies I don't support, but in this thread we're discussing Prymaxe and their shitty business. They fucked with Tom and Brian, so I won't buy from them. It's really that easy.

[D.o.S.]

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I should point out, though, that it is a great way to discover whether or not people have any understanding of rhetoric and the finer points of dialectics, in that this strategy is usually enough to "win" an argument in a more conventional setting (i.e. with troglodytes) and will reliably get results with the aforementioned troglodytes even though it's nothing more than a scenic detour away from the discussion.

Yes. I see. Name-calling is far better strategy for an effective conversation. Good point.

I think you misread what I wrote.

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I love you.

ILU2BB

[Twangasaurus]

This might be something people don't agree with me on this as much but I also think it's important to make the distinction between damaging the creator and damaging the middleman. When buying from Amazon or Book Depository or whatever huge internet sales business assuming they don't use tactics similar to that of Prymaxe you are primarily hurting other competitor businesses like mum and pop stores. Certainly not a great thing but I find it much more egregious when the creator of the product isn't rewarded because they are the people I want to do well and make more cool shit for me.

Also, what Wes and Jwar said. It's ok to get more attached to a cause because it's closer too you or a community you care about. Being a dick and buying my comics from book depository instead of my local comic shop might give me the funds to go and buy the pedals I want from the guitar store down the road. Sure, it's hypocritical but shit's not perfect and people do the best they can with the money they have. Doesn't lessen the value of the act in the first place (doesn't redeem your others either but you know).

[Wes Mantooth]

Yeah, I completely agree. I notice it all over the internet these days. And more than ever, people seem to get so hostile and angry about their cause. But when you point out someone doing even worse things or the same sort of thing on a broader scale, they don't even want to deal with it. They just want to hone in on one cause, get really indignant, and refuse to consider where it fits in the big picture. It's like there's a switch in people's brains these days, where they can ignore the stuff that is all around them, the evil practices of giant corporations and nations that they buy from every day, as long as they get to channel some hate towards an easy target.

That's like asking someone who lives in a city with polluted air why they are still breathing. Sometimes you have to play the shitty game and pick your battles, can't win everything.

Your analogy doesn't really fit with what I just said. I was saying, isn't it strange that you are so angry about that hamburger wrapper laying on the sidewalk, but you're ignoring that the air around you is barely breathable? Isn't it strange that when I mention the air to you, you dismiss it with a non sequiter and then immediately go back to raging about that wrapper?

For clarification: I'm not talking about you particularly or even this thread particularly, it's just a phenomenon that seems to have become quite common all over the internet these days.

Oh okay I see what you mean. Yeah, lots of people like to get angry about certain things when they are a microcosm of a larger systemic issue. Also people like to get mad about people being assholes and they love calling out assholes but they won't call out themselves or actually do anything to fix said asshole problem, they just like to tweet about it and post links on their Facebooks.

That said I think we are all trying to have a discussion about Prymaxe's shady business practices and saying that other companies are shittier is true and still a problem, but it isn't furthering our discussion, just derailing it. The problem lays much deeper but rather than just dismiss this discussion why not contribute positively in some way to stopping it?

[Jwar]

I would like to say as well that I don't have a blind hatred for Prymaxe. I don't hate them as much as I'm disgusted by their business practices. You make decisions in life and one of those decision is who you are willing to spend your hard earned cash with. I won't spend mine with them because they don't value me as a consumer in anyway, they have proven that. They have a blatant disregard for the happiness of their customers and try to make up for it with their constant discounts.

Maybe I'm naive, but I refuse to shop at a place that doesn't care about my experience as a customer. I'd rather spend extra money and get better customer service.

[Dr. Sherman Sticks M.D.]

i didn't even have to read about all this stuff. i just saw a pic of that prymaxe dude that someone posted w/ his shramp cocktails and instantly knew he was a douche. a picture is worth 597 posts.

[onyxrhino]

Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I should point out, though, that it is a great way to discover whether or not people have any understanding of rhetoric and the finer points of dialectics, in that this strategy is usually enough to "win" an argument in a more conventional setting (i.e. with troglodytes) and will reliably get results with the aforementioned troglodytes even though it's nothing more than a scenic detour away from the discussion.

Yes. I see. Name-calling is far better strategy for an effective conversation. Good point.

I think you misread what I wrote.

Nah, I saw where you essentially said anyone who brought up Amazon (i.e. a company with similar business practices, yet on a much larger scale, to Prymaxe) was creating a strawman (while you proceeded to put words in my mouth...irony) and did not understand dialectics (so comparing two similar things has no place in dialectics, huh? who knew...) and if you disagreed with this point, you were a "troglodyte". I think I got it.

Don't worry. I don't have the time or the energy today to engage in an internet battle of righteousness. So, I cede the floor to you. Mark yourself down as the "winner" and proceed to explain how I don't understand rhetoric or how I am an evil troll trying to derail the succinct conversation you guys have been having for 50 pages. I've said all I wanted to say anyway. Read into it whatever you like. Adding words won't change anything at this point.