Sure, if the libraries for doing 2-D are as good as the 3-D.
Well now you're arguing specific implementations. I was arguing theory, all other things being equal. Yes, you can pick a 2D library which handles things better than a 3D library, but for every 2D library it is theoretically possible for a 3D library to do exactly the same things with exactly the same effort with the addition of extra features should you choose to take advantage of them.
I'm still debating your money-causes-stress point in my head though. On the one hand, I understand where you're coming from: even deciding not to spend the money is still some form of effort. At the same time, I'm now visualizing a scenario where you don't decide to not spend the money, you simply don't do it; if I had plans to only spend $10, I go out and do it and, at the end of the trip, discover that I actually had two $10 bills, I have expended no additional energy. Or even a scenario where you know you have two $10, but don't need to think about the second because you had already set your mind on that which only cost $10: you simply have the extra $10 lying around, but if something comes up that requires it you have it available, even if you hadn't started out with a purpose or thought for it.
Anywho, what my mind was working towards with Kaepora Gaebora and I was hoping to get more of his opinions on before he sadly stopped posting was this: "better" must be a subjective word. One thing can only be made better than another based on a set of rules and goals. In some cases, as with games like poker, the rules are well defined and it is quite easy to say one hand is better than another within the bounds of the game. Of course, someone can be playing the game but acting outside the rules of the game: they are cheating, or they wish to lose for some reason, or probably a few other scenarios which would make the "better" hand actually worse (and vice versa). These are not the norm.
Where he and I differed was on that point: whether a sufficiently normal state exists where someone can make some specific points about one thing being better than another and have it be accepted.
Take the money example again. I don't know anyone who honestly believes that two $10 is not better than one $10. Maybe if you start getting into significant quantities, hundreds or thousands or more, you may get some debates, but if you ask random person on the street which they'd rather have, $10 or $20, they will by and large say $20. This is because society (and not just society as a whole, but sub-societies, such as your career, etc...) has established rules and goals which the vast majority accept and work toward that do not need to be expressed: they simply are, whether you've thought about them or not. It is better to eat than to not eat. It is better to not kill than it is to kill. It is better to have more available than less. Of course, it is possible to craft scenarios where these are not true, but those wouldn't be normal: ask random people on the street if they want to kill you, and for the most part I would hope you get "no" as an answer; if you get a lot of "yes" then you are that outlier
. To that end, the point Kaepora Gaebora and I differed on, was that I believe that I can say "A is better than B" based on these unspoken rules and have it understood as accepted truth for society at large, whereas he believes that one can never dismiss the outliers and that "better" must always be expressed as an opinion.
