Viewing Thread:
"Interesting question..."

My mate recently asked me a question, and it really got me think so I thought I'd post it here:

Would you rather have a life with no financial troubles, the money to get what you want and essentially a 'perfect' life, or what you've been given?

I'll start off by saying that, no matter how much I may moan about people being better off than myself, I wouldn't want to change it. We all have our problems, but I like to think that a bit of a struggle in life makes for a more interesting outcome. Getting anything you like without working makes me think it's just a waste of a life. Plus, a disability to see everything you may want to see, or have what you may want to have can change your life; half of things I live for, and I love, may not have been discovered if I chose another path.

So, what would you rather?

Goatboy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I pity the girl who proves that 'anyone can pull at uni' with you.
>
> "Call me Mr President! Mr President! Do it you terrorist! I
> am NOT in the wrong hole: I read all about this stuff in Clear and
> Present Danger. Who's the President? Huh? Huh? That wasn't
> premature. The average time is less than 60s. Here's the link!
> Yeah, google me, baby, google me real good."
>
> -----------
>
> I vote for Snuggly reinstating GAD for just this one post.

I agree. But I should probably go and renew my membership first.

Reffering back to the original point of the post, I think I would take the money. Money cannot change who you are, how you live, how you interact with others etc. Its just an object of this world that gets us through things. Having no financial difficulty's would be nicev being able to have anything you want would be nice.

But...

I can see what you are trying to say, When you want something REALLY bad, you work for it. You save money/work overtime/sell treasured items and once you've got enough, you'll buy it with satisfaction. With having loads of money, You won't need to work for it, Just go out an buy it. The satisfaction is gone, its just as easy as a click of a finger. This is really bad for rich kids, they'll never learn how to work/save/look after their money because it's already there, no problems.

I say i'd take the money and save half of it.

unknown kernel wrote:
> "Call me Mr President! Mr President! Do it you terrorist! I
> am NOT in the wrong hole: I read all about this stuff in Clear and
> Present Danger. Who's the President? Huh? Huh? That wasn't
> premature. The average time is less than 60s. Here's the link!
> Yeah, google me, baby, google me real good."


*Chokes while laughing*

Blank wrote:
> So it should - there's no reason why these people should have so much
> state-funded wealth and opulence simply by being the offspring of
> someone else who had it. And they got it the same way.


When I have kids, I'll want to be able to give them financial security, and that includes leaving them my money when I die.
It's the same principle, just to a lesser extent - my kids would be getting some amount of money not by earning or deserving it, but simply because they happened to be my offspring.

Maybe you could argue there should be some kind of limit on how much they should get. That in itself is debatable, but even if you accept that there should be a limit, how much should that be? And why is any one person's idea of the limit any more valid than anyone else's?

I think it's fair to say the limit is when your dad dies, you won't be squabbling with your brother over who gets Cornwall.

Royalty sucks

Insane ßartender wrote:
> Personally, I think if people such as Light et al disagree so strongly
> with Belldandy's method of discussion, they should ignore him
> completely. It'll have the same overall frustrating effect for him,
> without the need to constantly hurl insults at him.

That's one possibility, but as I've said to Black Glove;

>However, on a more personal level, people like Bell offend me. Their >bullying (yes, I know I'm behaving like a bully toward Bell. But ONLY >Bell; I only ever behave like a bullying b*st*rd toward other bully's), >self-important, prissy derogation of any and everyone who disagrees with >them literally makes my stomach churn with anger. Call it misguided >idealism if you like, but I see it as remiss of me not to call people >like Bell into question. If I were to leave him be, I'd be letting a >bullying little coward think he could get away with his cowardice. Uh-uh.

gamezfreak wrote:
> Reffering back to the original point of the post, I think I would take
> the money. Money cannot change who you are,

But if you'd had that money from the start of your life, you'd be a different person now.

Give me the money.

I'd be a little taller, personally. {:)

Oooh, and perhaps a little less naive. Lots of people have been branding me that lately at school. {:)