I have a theoretical question for all of you!
I want you to analyze the question, and then answer / debate which of the two you believe is right.
GO!
There are two gods, and you can only choose one.
There is a god of salvation, and a god of destruction.
They both of their own strings attached.
The god of salvation cleanses the world of starvation, war, and natural disaster, but only saves white people. All of the people with different skin colours disappear forever.
The god of destruction destroys the world, all of us, everything we know, society etc. But the world is then reborn, and everybody is equal, much like the world of salvation, a happy society where there are is no sickness, war, starvation etc, only we have to sacrifice everything we know now, in order to achieve it.
Well? Which would you choose?
Destruction. No question... based on those strings.
Destruction.
I wish that people could achieve a better life here without so much pain and destruction we've already caused. I do not understand why it is so hard for people to accept others and be -equal- and see others as equal on their own. But many people have their heads stuck so far up their butts that they cant see the bigger picture. Which is sad. and pathetic. imo. Anyways. i wont rant. Just my 2 cents.
Strings are rather polarized I would say it comes down to ethnic cleansing or re-birth. Good and evil has pretty much become irrelevant lol.
If we save all the whites the world would be even more shit in some senses because there will always be hate, that hate would only shift from races to things like religions or sexual orientation in ever greater force than it is now. Sure there would be no war or environmental based issues. But you still got the same old people, now just with more reason to attack the more niche groups of their own race. So in short, no better off aside being hunger and disease free.
If the world is re-born well... you have lost much interest in that option because none of us would be there to see it, people want to see peace and an end to things bad, but if they are not even there to enjoy it then.. why? Of course there would be those who are far more self-sacrificing, but I think on average people would only want a happy re-birth like that if they themselves were re-born into it otherwise they would rather keep things like they are now and just try and work towards a better future the old fashioned way, IE 2 steps forward one step back.
Choosing the god of destruction is too easy. There is a catch in it, for it is easy to choose that god if you are of a certain ethnic group.
Salvation, the reason is quite simple: both gods have the same outcome, everyone ends up being equal, but the god of salvation has less people die to reach that point, both choices lead to the same people dying, so those people are boned, but only one choice leads to some people not dying. Everyone seems to think the god of destruction is the better one, but I think they haven't considered the implications of such a choice, people are not reborn, the WORLD is, meaning everyone still dies. If the outcome is the same from both scenarios, the option that causes less death is the better choice, HOWEVER! if the destruction option leads to a BETTER world, then the choice becomes more complicated.
There are many other factors to consider, for example: How much destruction exactly is caused? Are all our advancements as a species destroyed as well? (you said it destroys everything we know) Are these new humans the same as us but with the parts of the brain responsible for discrimination and violence rewritten to exclude those? Do they lose all our technological advancement? if so how far back does technology go? Do they have to rediscover stuff like using sticks as tools and making fire? Do they have to re-evolve their brains? or are they of the same capacity as they were before? How does the REST of the world change? there are many more questions I could ask, this question you ask is not as simple as you make it seem, and your new world could end up dying before it begins.
not to be a nagative Nancy but im sure the world can go with out a hole lot of people kinda over pop. as it is and in bad shape do to that so id have to got with destruction a new start and maybe a better tomarrow for the one's who are going to rebuild the future from scratch.
: Sevrin September 06, 2012, 11:00:19 -06:00
Salvation, the reason is quite simple: both gods have the same outcome, everyone ends up being equal, but the god of salvation has less people die to reach that point, both choices lead to the same people dying, so those people are boned, but only one choice leads to some people not dying. Everyone seems to think the god of destruction is the better one, but I think they haven't considered the implications of such a choice, people are not reborn, the WORLD is, meaning everyone still dies. If the outcome is the same from both scenarios, the option that causes less death is the better choice, HOWEVER! if the destruction option leads to a BETTER world, then the choice becomes more complicated.
There are many other factors to consider, for example: How much destruction exactly is caused? Are all our advancements as a species destroyed as well? (you said it destroys everything we know) Are these new humans the same as us but with the parts of the brain responsible for discrimination and violence rewritten to exclude those? Do they lose all our technological advancement? if so how far back does technology go? Do they have to rediscover stuff like using sticks as tools and making fire? Do they have to re-evolve their brains? or are they of the same capacity as they were before? How does the REST of the world change? there are many more questions I could ask, this question you ask is not as simple as you make it seem, and your new world could end up dying before it begins.
It's not supposed to be simple.
At least you figured that out.
More or less.
There isn't supposed to be a clear answer, this is just something to make people think, out of random curiosity.
Destruction.
It's always the darkest before the dawn. :P
: Fleurette September 07, 2012, 12:54:23 -06:00
It's not supposed to be simple.
At least you figured that out.
More or less.
There isn't supposed to be a clear answer, this is just something to make people think, out of random curiosity.
It IS very simple, IF both scenarios have the same end result, if they do not, then the answer is very complicated and there are lots of things to consider.
IF both scenarios DO have the same end result, then the more moral option is to go with the one that results in the least amount of death.
I'd rather die and take out as many white people as I can.
That's a pretty mature way to look at it. *cough* *cough*
When your race is massively hunted and killed in there home by white people you lose your remorse for them.
Alrighty kohl, what was the point of saying that?
: kohl September 07, 2012, 04:19:17 -06:00
I'd rather die and take out as many white people as I can.
This was incredibly negative, and did not need to be posted.
Please think before you post.
In regards to my answer, I chose destruction.
Saving only one race of the many beautiful people on this Earth is completely against everything I stand for.
If all lives are equally precious, then they are all equally worthless, and I would rather see everybody be reborn together, than have only one race survive.
And to answer some of Sevrins questions, because I'm now too lazy to quote:
Yes, people would be reborn and programmed for love, and not hate, it would be an entirely human condition.
Humans would develop at an incredibly fast rate, don't ask me how, I just thought of the question, you do the rest, LOL!
alright well here's another question: what if I choose neither god and instead choose to be an atheist? then does nobody have to die?
: Sevrin September 07, 2012, 05:07:18 -06:00
alright well here's another question: what if I choose neither god and instead choose to be an atheist? then does nobody have to die?
Aahh, lovely theory.
If you deny either god, the world continues as is.
then I choose atheism.
and just scuttles the hole thing well done :P
I was surprised when no one on the first page took the loophole (since it says "can choose," not "have to choose"). I'm glad to see that post of the second page revolves around this point.
Now, in brief, my reasoning behind this being this option being ideal is that, while our world is not perfect as it is now -- there is hate, war, famine, destruction, etc. -- it also contains so many good and positive things -- people helping each other, love, selflessness, etc. Both these negative and positive thigns are created by people of all colours and in all walks of life; just as a rich person can donate money, a poor person can donate time, and just as a dictator can start a war, so too can a street gang. We are currently living in a place of balance and, sure, sometimes the bad can far outweigh the good, but, at the same time, all of the negative things allow the inherent goodness of so many people to show through.
To say that all of the bad will end if all races but one are eradicated is only a half truth -- yes, the current problems may come to an end, but that leaves room for new, potentially worse, ones to arise. In the same vein, destroying everything, only to bring life back in "equality" is only a temporary solution. Equality only lasts as long as people are willing to be equal, and in a species where that is nigh impossible (there will always be differences in intelligence, skills, problem solving, interests, etc.), it will not last long. And then, even if there is no racial discrepancy, they will simply find some other obvious feature, be it physical or not, to focus on and discriminate against. I'm not saying that this would be the case for everyone, but it would be the case for enough.
: Grace September 08, 2012, 09:32:59 -06:00
I was surprised when no one on the first page took the loophole (since it says "can choose," not "have to choose"). I'm glad to see that post of the second page revolves around this point.
Now, in brief, my reasoning behind this being this option being ideal is that, while our world is not perfect as it is now -- there is hate, war, famine, destruction, etc. -- it also contains so many good and positive things -- people helping each other, love, selflessness, etc. Both these negative and positive thigns are created by people of all colours and in all walks of life; just as a rich person can donate money, a poor person can donate time, and just as a dictator can start a war, so too can a street gang. We are currently living in a place of balance and, sure, sometimes the bad can far outweigh the good, but, at the same time, all of the negative things allow the inherent goodness of so many people to show through.
To say that all of the bad will end if all races but one are eradicated is only a half truth -- yes, the current problems may come to an end, but that leaves room for new, potentially worse, ones to arise. In the same vein, destroying everything, only to bring life back in "equality" is only a temporary solution. Equality only lasts as long as people are willing to be equal, and in a species where that is nigh impossible (there will always be differences in intelligence, skills, problem solving, interests, etc.), it will not last long. And then, even if there is no racial discrepancy, they will simply find some other obvious feature, be it physical or not, to focus on and discriminate against. I'm not saying that this would be the case for everyone, but it would be the case for enough.
Dingdingding~
We have a winner.
: Grace September 08, 2012, 09:32:59 -06:00
And then, even if there is no racial discrepancy, they will simply find some other obvious feature, be it physical or not, to focus on and discriminate against. I'm not saying that this would be the case for everyone, but it would be the case for enough.
I've followed this topic for quite a while and I thought I should add my two cents.
Forget about a right or wrong world in terms of equality, social ills is, and I can't stress this enough, a
necessary evil to facilitate society. Atheistic or theistic, terrorism or non-terrorism, bigotry or non-bigotry, 420 or no-420, you get the idea. If we live in a world with no fear, sadness or anger, how can we enjoy what is peace, or happiness? This is the concept of harmony that the world rests upon, for better or for worse.
I posted it because I think there should be a shared environment of people. If the white people like to consume and destroy there homeland so be it. Stay in your own land and do it. White people have made great discoveries in society but they've taken a great cost because of it. Why destroy a land of people that have become united with nature? White people brought upon a disease on the new world. This land was what I believe most of you would consider paradise. It was lost. For what? Fortune. It's still happening. How can you still like the race of the white people as they still take a beautiful land and taint it? You tell me to think before I post, how 'bout you see it from my perspective. Sure you've had an inflated society back east. You started with good trades, brought us great technology but then you start killing us so you can take over the land and dig up gold, abuse the environment and find cheap housing for your degenerates and criminals. How'd you like to be stolen from your home, enslaved, and die of disease? How'd you like it if your children were pulled from your arms, beaten for believing what you taught them. I do not think white people have the right state of mind to be able to withhold a stable environment. I got more but I'll let you guys think about this for now.
Look, kohl, nobody is even still alive from that time, the settlers that colonized america and killed the natives are all dead, the people who owned slaves are all dead, the only real atrocity that's gone on recently is george W bush and he's not president of the US anymore so yeah.
very few people think that white history is something to be proud of and talking about this stuff now is like if you were to go into this thread: http://www.bcfurries.com/forum/index.php?topic=2557.0 (http://www.bcfurries.com/forum/index.php?topic=2557.0)
and tell people to calm down. The simple fact is; most people aren't like that anymore, most people agree that white people have done some terrible things in the past, but those people are DEAD, and unless something terrible has happened to you specifically in your lifetime I don't see what you're upset about, none of this has happened to you, and if something bad HAS happened to you, I'm sorry for that, but you need to realize that some people are just douchebags, and it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.
: kohl September 07, 2012, 04:29:38 -06:00
When your race is massively hunted and killed in there home by white people you lose your remorse for them.
I believe Kohl is referring to the government of Canada's Indian Act, which still ran residential schools into the 1960s. First Nation's children were ripped out of their cultural family environment and thrust into the abusive custody of church-run residential schools, abuses for which the federal government has only recently apologized. The link to elders was severed, languages allowed to fade into extinction. The central-coastal cultural groups (Bella Bella, Alert Bay, Bella Coola, etc.) were prohibited by law to practice the extremely important Potlach ceremony, which involved feasting, the transfer of wealth between families and clans, the status of chiefs, hereditary dances and songs. Massive amounts of goods were transferred at these gatherings. Assimilation was thought to be the best way to integrate presumably uncivilized, uncultured stone-aged people into society, but this ignorant thinking did more harm than benefit. The native people are still not fully integrated into Canadian society, and their own history and culture is still important, more so now that they are retracing and reclaiming portions of it. Some things are lost, a lot of artifacts and masks were burned by the churches, presumed by missionaries to be idols of false gods and demons. Totem poles were dug up and burial boxes removed from villages, and shipped to museums all around the world (take a trip to the Museum of Anthropology, or the Royal British Columbia Museum, in Victoria, have a look around). If someone from outside of a white culture were to exhume bodies and headstones from a cemetery, there would be mass protests, but the natives weren't held to the same standard, they were subhuman, their possessions, customs and art were deemed worthless by the invading colonials.
This isn't ancient history, the most recent amendment to the Indian Act was in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act)
Why should a group of people be blamed for something they weren't all a part of?
You see this everywhere, all of the time, and it really makes me sad. Rather than focus on those specific individuals that committed the crime, we hold everybody else that is genetically/philosophically similar accountable.
Most white people I've been around complain about Indians, Asians and the Mexicans. They're not even in there own territory. How do they even have the right to complain about other people coming into Canada when they themselves have invaded the territory?
Well most white people are still here consuming the land that my ancestors have nourished. Why not have all the white people travel back to the east where they started all this consumer ship? I've worked for these people that clear cut forests to build there million dollar homes. I couldn't even last for a month because it sickened me to see this prime land for wild life be ripped apart. Mountain goats were wandering into the city. Why? They were being pushed out of there home. This is spreading. It worries me. It makes me believe that humanity will live on supplements instead of a stable environment. There will be no need for animals or plant life. Even though that plant life has been proven to even cure AIDS and cure most of the ailments of sicknesses and disease. The lumber industry makes more money then an unpatented product provided by these plants so they're destroyed. This stuff is happening to me. I do deliveries to the exterior and all I see is more clear cutting and more houses being built. The natives here get segregated, I think the white people should be confined to build in certain areas.
Thank you Yoti.
Nibi. You people are still here. Spreading out and consuming the land that my people believed to be sacred and full of spirituality. You're pushing wildlife into dangerous territory and killing them for it when they pass the boundaries. Your people are making your own language mandatory to survive in this land. How do you think a native is supposed to support even himself in this land when your 'civilization' rejects him for speaking his kins language and takes property over his hunting ground? If I went out to feed myself as my people did I'd get locked up in a box.
I'm not getting involved in this, since I have very strong opinions regarding all of it (my grandmother grew up in a residential school and the last one wasn't actually shut down until the late '80s, so yeah). However, Kohl, I have to request that you stop referring to everyone here as "you people." You're separating yourself from everyone in the thread, as if they're all some "great white menace" without their own heritages, histories, and backgrounds facing against you as a lone representative of first nations people. Finger-pointing like that makes you come across as childish and makes it harder to take your arguments seriously since it sounds as if they're coming from a petty child. Another reason for this is that you're speaking as if the people in this thread, who you are talking to, are the ones responsible for all of these atrocities, when, for the most part, that's not remotely true. You have good points and I want to take you seriously, but it's very difficult when you speak as if it's you against the world, when it's really, really not.
Okay okay, everyone cards back in your decks here... :monocle:
But if we really are going to go this route... There is a sad reason why race relations are what they are in some places, its because no group unanimously believes in wiping the slate clean, hell there isn't even a majority who believe in it regardless of ethnicity, and every group as a collective whole has not really made great strides to enact true equality. All we have right now are whites being called racist for the most petty little things. ever hear the line "its because im black isn't it?" that emerged as s tongue in cheek jab at how quickly some people of color can be to over react when something doesn't go how they want it it, it can even be something as simple as someone telling them an item they want at a store is no longer on sale... Its individuals like this that DON'T want racism to die (at least on a subconscious level maybe even unknown to them), they don't want to see real equality because real equality would mean giving up all race based claims when something doesn't go the way they want it to. This among other things, there are many groups out there who get all sorts of breaks in life, no taxes, preference because they fit an ethnicity, hell even what I like to call "social get out of jail free card"'s and you know, all that would be great and fine, if everyone got those same privileges and little boosts. But since these revolve around things like genders, ethnicity and religions. Of course its gonna totally polarize people and make them "racist" when really it more so boils down to one group seeing another getting special rights, privileges and even material goods and saying "that's not fair.." True equality is as simple as having a real level playing field, people regardless of ethnicity just get bothered when they see others getting a free leg up while they themselves are struggling. Newer generations are rather transparent when it comes to race, they see it as almost nothing of a difference, but as soon as they get out into the real world and a social system set up like it is now... That doesn't last for long, they are raised with a notion that everyone is equal and treated as such, but that's not how current society is playing that game.
But this is where the counter argument of "well its making up for all the horrid shit that happened in the past" comes in, and to that notion I will say. Take it out on the individual or maybe even what ever organization behind it, not the society as a whole, If someone of color came up and slapped me would "all colored people are horrible and assault people, I should sue them all for it" be an appropriate response? logically no, it would be a moronic one. BUT you would be justified in pursuing action against that individual is it was THEM who did the action and not their race. This is another huge slice of the racism-pie, you got people out there who have never done a single mean spirited thing to anyone who was of a different race to themselves, but simply because they are of a different race and even as soon as that person says anything, even if its just an opinion that other groups getting special privileges isn't fair to everyone, people just smack them with the racist stamp. The hilarious stinger? That act itself of labeling someone racist because they are white and don't agree with someone who isn't of their ethnicity?.. its worthy of a face-desk so hard that it could split the planet in two.
"But the world is then reborn, and everybody is equal"
if one god destroys all EXCEPT the white man and the other destroys all, then how is it that everyone is equal?
if the god destroys all then all the people go as well leaving us all dead.
there is no correct answer because if you choose to save the whites you are racist, and if you choose to destroy all you are a quebecois. that is just what they are going to do to their province and then this country.
Eugh, topic ruined with a petty debate about things that happened decades / centuries ago.
: Fleurette September 09, 2012, 03:16:41 -06:00
Eugh, topic ruined with a petty debate about things that happened decades / centuries ago.
Well, given the context of your initial question, I wouldn't be surprised.
Grace. I believe I only used the term "you people" once, in response to Nibi. I looked at her profile and she is white.
Take it out on the individual? That would be all the white people that are in this land breeding, and abusing the environment. It's not just about direct assault. It's a culture of people that spread like a sickness.
This stuff is still happening. White people are still holding control of this land, they're still here abusing the land for fortune.
: kohl September 09, 2012, 03:33:45 -06:00
Grace. I believe I only used the term "you people" once, in response to Nibi. I looked at her profile and she is white.
Take it out on the individual? That would be all the white people that are in this land breeding, and abusing the environment. It's not just about direct assault. It's a culture of people that spread like a sickness.
This stuff is still happening. White people are still holding control of this land, they're still here abusing the land for fortune.
We get to control the land because we earned it with our powerful high tech flags. If you people had thought to put colors on rectangles of cloth and stick them on poles you could have had control of the land.
: KermodeJay September 09, 2012, 04:14:48 -06:00
We get to control the land because we earned it with our powerful high tech flags. If you people had thought to put colors on rectangles of cloth and stick them on poles you could have had control of the land.
This is getting brutal..
Can one of the admins please lock this thread?
This is the last time I ever try to get furries to think, god forbid it ends like this.
*sighs* Jeez, I'm not even going to bother. If you want to be racist and think all white people are whatever it is you think they are, go ahead and do that, as long as you don't start hurting people because of your beliefs.
I wanted to leave a lengthy response but I think it'll fall on deaf ears, so good day to you kohl.
: kohl September 09, 2012, 03:33:45 -06:00
Grace. I believe I only used the term "you people" once, in response to Nibi. I looked at her profile and she is white.
Take it out on the individual? That would be all the white people that are in this land breeding, and abusing the environment. It's not just about direct assault. It's a culture of people that spread like a sickness.
This stuff is still happening. White people are still holding control of this land, they're still here abusing the land for fortune.
That's not how it works kohl, this is our land now too, where would you want us to go? we were born here we have lived our whole lives here! sure our ancestors did some pretty terrible shit, but WE didn't and I seriously doubt nibi is out there with a chainsaw chopping down trees every day, it's not that what you're saying isn't true, it's just that you can't apply it to everyone that is white! people are selfish and people are assholes and people don't care about the future of the planet as long as they can make some money, but those are ALL people, not just white people. It's offensive to blame me and Nibi and any other white person you might be blaming for this for things we haven't done, for things we have had no part in at all, don't generalize white people as bad people, it's offensive and will get you ostracized, if you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the people who are actually doing the things you are mad about.
Locked till further notice.
: kohl September 09, 2012, 03:33:45 -06:00
Grace. I believe I only used the term "you people" once, in response to Nibi. I looked at her profile and she is white.
[admin]Pretty much admitting that your post is intended as a personal attack. Kohl, you are at one warning for personal attacks. (You had one previously, but it expired). I'm unlocking this because I hope we can have interesting conversations in a civil manner.[/admin]
: RainRat September 09, 2012, 06:26:53 -06:00
Pretty much admitting that your post is intended as a personal attack. Kohl, you are at one warning for personal attacks. (You had one previously, but it expired). I'm unlocking this because I hope we can have interesting conversations in a civil manner.
Thank you RainRat. ^^
Side note: This topic was created for people to have an interesting discussion. I was in no way intending to be racist, and I should not have used the term "Only white people."
Take that condition, and think of it as "Only your race."
: Fleurette September 06, 2012, 08:28:13 -06:00
The god of salvation cleanses the world of starvation, war, and natural disaster, but only saves white people. All of the people with different skin colours disappear forever.
It's not too late to change it...I'd suggest something different from race if I were you...perhaps...change it to saving only a certain economic/financial class of people or something? That way we can leave race out of the door.
: Tef September 09, 2012, 06:34:51 -06:00
It's not too late to change it...I'd suggest something different from race if I were you...perhaps...change it to saving only a certain economic/financial class of people or something? That way we can leave race out of the door.
Mmh, you're right.
Perhaps only your country?
Hmm...on second thought, let's kick away race and country...and while we are at it, eliminate the richest and most influential people from the equation, say, people who earn more than 35-50k per month?
: Tef September 09, 2012, 07:12:57 -06:00
Hmm...on second thought, let's kick away race and country...and while we are at it, eliminate the richest and most influential people from the equation, say, people who earn more than 35-50k per month?
Hrmm.. Salvation is a harsh path no matter how you look at it.
: KermodeJay September 09, 2012, 04:14:48 -06:00
We get to control the land because we earned it with our powerful high tech flags. If you people had thought to put colors on rectangles of cloth and stick them on poles you could have had control of the land.
| Are you quoting Eddie Izzard? |
| Eddie Izzard - Do you have a flag? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k#) |
All arguments should be backed up by Eddie Izzard -- he has the best hilarious insights.
: Tef September 09, 2012, 07:12:57 -06:00
Hmm...on second thought, let's kick away race and country...and while we are at it, eliminate the richest and most influential people from the equation, say, people who earn more than 35-50k per month?
35k/year is actually pretty... par even 50k is by no means rich. Thats pretty much wiping out the entire population except people under 30 years old when you think about it.
As for this entire topic as a general, to propose such a question and start it off with talking about a race, the impending result was honestly asked for and should have come as no surprise. This is why many forums make it a no-no to make topics about religion, race or even in extreme situations, politics. These are all topics people have VERY STRONG feelings about. One must not simply assume that every discussion will be sunshine and lollipops and that there is only one right answer to a question, or that everyone will agree with the original poster as well.
I sold off my Sociology 300 level textbook last year...my memory has betrayed me as well. Would it be 250k?
P.S. I really hope KJ is trolling.
: Drake Wingfire September 09, 2012, 08:29:53 -06:00
35k/year is actually pretty... par even 50k is by no means rich. Thats pretty much wiping out the entire population except people under 30 years old when you think about it.
This is sort of related: Money VS Happiness (http://icanhasscience.com/psychology-stuff/actually-money-does-buy-happiness/).
I believe the max should be 75k, since that makes sense, if more money doesn't make somebody any happier, then it's a good cap off. Not to mention it's still a large sum of money. XDDD
I think that scale is influenced greatly though by the societal belief that money = success in life and the more money you have the better you are, also that happy people are more likely to make more money because they are more likely to have the energy needed to go to school, to perform well in the workplace, and other positive effects of being happy.
I think that killing people off that have high income would also be a bad idea and you would need some kind of magic to keep the economy balanced, like the god originally mentioned in the first post would have to personally micromanage stuff, because there would be no higher ups, nobody to organize things and everything would divulge into chaos, however chaos would also be a result of massive amounts of people dying regardless of who and why.
: Nibi September 09, 2012, 09:44:08 -06:00
This is sort of related: Money VS Happiness (http://icanhasscience.com/psychology-stuff/actually-money-does-buy-happiness/).
I believe the max should be 75k, since that makes sense, if more money doesn't make somebody any happier, then it's a good cap off. Not to mention it's still a large sum of money. XDDD
Thats rather interesting :O
Damn, with that kind of income I would seriously have to think what to spend my money on and in the sense of "gee what do I want", getting a house would not be some dream either.
: Yotie Destoban September 09, 2012, 08:09:51 -06:00
| Are you quoting Eddie Izzard? |
Not a quote. Quoting is verbatim repetition. That would be a similar anecdote arrived at though what I would assume to be similar paths of thought.
I believe I could condense my point into:
Some people are so deep into poverty that the only thing they own is the economy money. (Your mileage may vary)
You can have every capital and concrete product in the book and yet you wouldn't be happy.
Yeah, you own the land with your, shall we say, little coloured flags, but this sort of historically traditional ownership is temporary. With information circulating faster than the progress of society and the economy, social movements can make themselves known quite boldly.