''It's All About Money''

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

Seven deadly sins according to Mahatma Gandhi

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Science without humanity
Knowledge without character
Politics without principle
Commerce without morality
Worship without sacrifice.”

what's the difference between conscience, morality, and principle for the purpose of this quote? I feel like they are interchangeable in the quote.

Also... character? is that another interchangeable?

They are all inherently the same thing as there is fundamentally, a person cannot do right in one department and wrong in another, life as a whole is not divisible, I believe that this quote of Gandhi is truly reflective of how we should live our life. Truly, one becomes good through good action, and evil through evil action. Evil people, evil countries and evil beings cannot gain happiness

[Infected Mushroom]

what's the difference between conscience, morality, and principle for the purpose of this quote? I feel like they are interchangeable in the quote.

Also... character? is that another interchangeable?

They are all inherently the same thing as there is fundamentally, a person cannot do right in one department and wrong in another, life as a whole is not divisible, I believe that this quote of Gandhi is truly reflective of how we should live our life. Truly, one becomes good through good action, and evil through evil action. Evil people, evil countries and evil beings cannot gain happiness

I see...

this is very interesting. It MIGHT be true (I know several evil people and I don't think any of them are very happy wholistically).

Its a fairly healthy moral and ideological framework, certainly better than the mindless pursuit of wealth that dominates our culture and society...

[Imperialpowersofkorea]

They are all inherently the same thing as there is fundamentally, a person cannot do right in one department and wrong in another, life as a whole is not divisible, I believe that this quote of Gandhi is truly reflective of how we should live our life. Truly, one becomes good through good action, and evil through evil action. Evil people, evil countries and evil beings cannot gain happiness

I see...

this is very interesting. It MIGHT be true (I know several evil people and I don't think any of them are very happy wholistically).

Its a fairly healthy moral and ideological framework, certainly better than the mindless pursuit of wealth that dominates our culture and society...

I remember being read the vana parva or the third book of the Mahabharata, which I believe captures the essence of humanity, when the Pandavs were in exile in the forests they understood the truth about detachment. When one person becomes attached to wealth, he would come to be ruined by it because people who are attached to things cannot see the world outside it. Even the Buddha had to leave all his material belongs and his kingship to truly find out about his happiness and the reason behind suffering.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Life and success in life is not all about money.

Success is what you think success is (in my instance recognition in my field is its own success). Success just means being able to achieve one's goals in life.

Money is necessary to pay the bills and maintain a comfortable standard of living, but not necessary for success. Success is not a quantitative metric.

[Bearon]

I don't have many friends as I'm homeschooled.

Ah, so you have even fewer opportunities to meet people who come from different walks of life than 99% of the members of this forum did at your age. Clearly, this means you get to accurately gauge the sorts of things others have experienced.

Most likely you are more worldly because of your age. Age doesn't automatically bring intelligence or wisdom however and it doesn't take away from the fact that you most likely don't have the life experience to answer the question that was asked either. My point being while you may have more worldly knowledge it doesn't make you correct in your opinion.

From what I can tell, I was more worldly at 17 (or even 12) than you are now. I honestly cannot remember a time when I would have acted like homeless people can never stop being homeless or that poverty is some imaginary thing that doesn't really happen the way you did.

And yeah, I do have the general answer to the question posed by the OP (having enough money to live comfortably enough that you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from or whether you can pay all of your bills and enough left over so you can enjoy yourself a bit is important, but beyond that it really isn't). I didn't learn this through the same sorts of experiences as others here, but unlike a 17 year old homeschooled kid, I have actually paid my own bills and rent with the money I've earned, even when it hasn't really been that much.

Honestly I've never seen a homeless person who's not completely penniless. I guess I automatically assumed that all homeless lived like that. A bit shortsighted on my part. *Waits for comment on how I've been shortsighted this entire thread*

Well, since you already pointed out that you've been shortsighted this entire time, there's no need for me to do so.

2. You're a female congratulations.

I didn't ask for your congratulations. I just asked you to use the correct pronoun instead of assuming I'm a dude.

3. And did I insinuate that you did?

How about right here:

There really is no premise I'm just pointing out the fact that if somebodies homeless they're not likely going to be hopping on NS everyday to brighten their day which is what Dakini was suggesting which doesn't make sense anyways given his friend is supposedly back on his feet ( if he was ever off them to begin with ).

It's almost like words have meanings or something (though it can be difficult to interpret the intended meaning in such a horrible run on sentence).

I think I have to disagree with you on that. I've met people from dozens of different countries and of all races, genders and sexuality through NS and Skype. While I may not have been able to meet them in person I've gotten to know a lot of them quite well.

I was talking about the question of homelessness posed earlier in the thread not the answer to the OP's money question.

Do you really find it difficult to gauge the meaning in a run on sentence or is that just another snipe at my typing skills? I sincerely hope its the first one for the sake of your communication skills.

Aside from that at the end there I pointed out how it didn't make sense what you were saying because if Yum is back on his feet he wouldn't technically be considered homeless anymore therefore even if homeless people did hop on NS everyday rather then doing something to productively fix their lives that wouldn't even apply to him.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think I have to disagree with you on that. I've met people from dozens of different countries and of all races, genders and sexuality through NS and Skype. While I may not have been able to meet them in person I've gotten to know a lot of them.

I was talking about the question of homelessness posed earlier in the thread not the answer to the OP's money question.

Do you really find it difficult to gauge the meaning in a run on sentence or is that just another snipe at my typing skills? I sincerely hope its the first one for the sake of your communication skills.

Aside from that at the end there I pointed out how it didn't make sense what you were saying because if Yum is back on his feet he wouldn't technically be considered homeless anymore therefore even if homeless people did hop on NS everyday rather then doing something to productively fix their lives that wouldn't even apply to him.

My problems are such:

Just because you know people from NS and Skype doesn't mean you know people from different walks of life. I've met even homeless people, people down on their luck, people who are sick, with terminal diseases, successful, and many other types of people. Just because you communicate with people on the internet doesn't mean you know a lot about the world in general. You just know the world as other people outside of you view the world themselves.

Homelessness has many causes. It isn't an easy answer.

A person can both be earning a living and be homeless or below the poverty line. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about that.

[Bearon]

I think I have to disagree with you on that. I've met people from dozens of different countries and of all races, genders and sexuality through NS and Skype. While I may not have been able to meet them in person I've gotten to know a lot of them.

I was talking about the question of homelessness posed earlier in the thread not the answer to the OP's money question.

Do you really find it difficult to gauge the meaning in a run on sentence or is that just another snipe at my typing skills? I sincerely hope its the first one for the sake of your communication skills.

Aside from that at the end there I pointed out how it didn't make sense what you were saying because if Yum is back on his feet he wouldn't technically be considered homeless anymore therefore even if homeless people did hop on NS everyday rather then doing something to productively fix their lives that wouldn't even apply to him.

My problems are such:

Just because you know people from NS and Skype doesn't mean you know people from different walks of life. I've met even homeless people, people down on their luck, people who are sick, with terminal diseases, successful, and many other types of people. Just because you communicate with people on the internet doesn't mean you know a lot about the world in general. You just know the world as other people outside of you view the world themselves.

Homelessness has many causes. It isn't an easy answer.

A person can both be earning a living and be homeless or below the poverty line. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about that.

Well isn't that pretty much the only way we can receive new information? Even news stories are going to be somewhat biased based on the writer and when you meet someone depending on your relationship with them you're going to see their situation with a biased point of view.

I know that and I shouldn't have assumed or made throw away statements earlier simply because I didn't know a lot about the situation of the homeless but to be fair I wasn't really taking this thread seriously before I got verbally assaulted by people who apparently were serious.

I understand that though to I would assume that most people would be looking for job opportunities rather then going on NS if they are truly are homeless. Also to be fair we haven't really defined the kind of homelessness we're talking about. I was assuming rock bottom.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well isn't that pretty much the only way we can receive new information? Even news stories are going to be somewhat biased based on the writer and when you meet someone depending on your relationship with them you're going to see their situation with a biased point of view.

I know that and I shouldn't have assumed or made throw away statements earlier simply because I didn't know a lot about the situation of the homeless but to be fair I wasn't really taking this thread seriously before I got verbally assaulted by people who apparently were serious.

I understand that though to I would assume that most people would be looking for job opportunities rather then going on NS if they are truly are homeless. Also to be fair we haven't really defined the kind of homelessness we're talking about. I was assuming rock bottom.

Nope. We receive information both by secondary and primary experiences. You can either sit in front of your TV and watch someone talk about what is going on or you can do it yourself. Knowledge-gaining isn't a passive skill.

Quite.

Not necessarily. We all can look for entertainment and alternative social outlets and places to speak out our ideas. It's just that for some of us those places mean NS or other places on the net.

[Bearon]

Well isn't that pretty much the only way we can receive new information? Even news stories are going to be somewhat biased based on the writer and when you meet someone depending on your relationship with them you're going to see their situation with a biased point of view.

I know that and I shouldn't have assumed or made throw away statements earlier simply because I didn't know a lot about the situation of the homeless but to be fair I wasn't really taking this thread seriously before I got verbally assaulted by people who apparently were serious.

I understand that though to I would assume that most people would be looking for job opportunities rather then going on NS if they are truly are homeless. Also to be fair we haven't really defined the kind of homelessness we're talking about. I was assuming rock bottom.

Nope. We receive information both by secondary and primary experiences. You can either sit in front of your TV and watch someone talk about what is going on or you can do it yourself. Knowledge-gaining isn't a passive skill.

Quite.

Not necessarily. We all can look for entertainment and alternative social outlets and places to speak out our ideas. It's just that for some of us those places mean NS or other places on the net.

What I meant is isn't gaining knowledge in any way going to happen from a biased point of view whether from your own or from others?

I'm still kind of doubtful people in that situation would hop on a political simulator site but I guess it's in the realm of possibility.

[Dakini]

Ah, so you have even fewer opportunities to meet people who come from different walks of life than 99% of the members of this forum did at your age. Clearly, this means you get to accurately gauge the sorts of things others have experienced.


From what I can tell, I was more worldly at 17 (or even 12) than you are now. I honestly cannot remember a time when I would have acted like homeless people can never stop being homeless or that poverty is some imaginary thing that doesn't really happen the way you did.

And yeah, I do have the general answer to the question posed by the OP (having enough money to live comfortably enough that you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from or whether you can pay all of your bills and enough left over so you can enjoy yourself a bit is important, but beyond that it really isn't). I didn't learn this through the same sorts of experiences as others here, but unlike a 17 year old homeschooled kid, I have actually paid my own bills and rent with the money I've earned, even when it hasn't really been that much.


Well, since you already pointed out that you've been shortsighted this entire time, there's no need for me to do so.


I didn't ask for your congratulations. I just asked you to use the correct pronoun instead of assuming I'm a dude.


How about right here:



It's almost like words have meanings or something (though it can be difficult to interpret the intended meaning in such a horrible run on sentence).

I think I have to disagree with you on that. I've met people from dozens of different countries and of all races, genders and sexuality through NS and Skype. While I may not have been able to meet them in person I've gotten to know a lot of them quite well.

Yeah, I got that at school. Also toss "class" and "ability" in there as well though. Plus actually interacting with people in real life, which gives a much better impression of how people live than just interacting with them online. While the city I'm from is particularly diverse, I doubt it's that exceptional.

I was talking about the question of homelessness posed earlier in the thread not the answer to the OP's money question.

Which one was that?

Do you really find it difficult to gauge the meaning in a run on sentence

Yes. That's the problem with run sentences that contain multiple ideas. There are a few different interpretations of the sentence in question depending exactly how you parse it. The absence of appropriate punctuation in the sentence does not tell the reader what was actually intended.

I sincerely hope its the first one for the sake of your communication skills.

You're a high school student with crappy grammar. If your sentence composition was better, you could perhaps communicate your ideas more effectively and with less ambiguity.

Aside from that at the end there I pointed out how it didn't make sense what you were saying because if Yum is back on his feet he wouldn't technically be considered homeless anymore therefore even if homeless people did hop on NS everyday rather then doing something to productively fix their lives that wouldn't even apply to him.

Now who needs to improve their communication skills? (Also, that's another run on sentence.)

I know Yums isn't homeless, that's why I never said he was presently homeless. I have interacted with people on other message boards who were homeless and accessing the internet from a public library. That's unrelated to anyone here except to make your initial claim that someone couldn't have ever been homeless because they're on the internet now even more stupid than it was (since even currently homeless people can and do frequent message boards). Apparently you also missed Yums's post about the abundance of time to kill while homeless while you were busy writing his life's story for him.

[Bearon]

I think I have to disagree with you on that. I've met people from dozens of different countries and of all races, genders and sexuality through NS and Skype. While I may not have been able to meet them in person I've gotten to know a lot of them quite well.

Yeah, I got that at school. Also toss "class" and "ability" in there as well though. Plus actually interacting with people in real life, which gives a much better impression of how people live than just interacting with them online. While the city I'm from is particularly diverse, I doubt it's that exceptional.

I was talking about the question of homelessness posed earlier in the thread not the answer to the OP's money question.

Which one was that?

Do you really find it difficult to gauge the meaning in a run on sentence

Yes. That's the problem with run sentences that contain multiple ideas. There are a few different interpretations of the sentence in question depending exactly how you parse it. The absence of appropriate punctuation in the sentence does not tell the reader what was actually intended.

I sincerely hope its the first one for the sake of your communication skills.

You're a high school student with crappy grammar. If your sentence composition was better, you could perhaps communicate your ideas more effectively and with less ambiguity.

Aside from that at the end there I pointed out how it didn't make sense what you were saying because if Yum is back on his feet he wouldn't technically be considered homeless anymore therefore even if homeless people did hop on NS everyday rather then doing something to productively fix their lives that wouldn't even apply to him.

Now who needs to improve their communication skills? (Also, that's another run on sentence.)

I know Yums isn't homeless, that's why I never said he was presently homeless. I have interacted with people on other message boards who were homeless and accessing the internet from a public library. That's unrelated to anyone here except to make your initial claim that someone couldn't have ever been homeless because they're on the internet now even more stupid than it was (since even currently homeless people can and do frequent message boards). Apparently you also missed Yums's post about the abundance of time to kill while homeless while you were busy writing his life's story for him.

Maybe but then again I speak with people during their free time and when they want to actually spend time communicating while at school it's sort of forced interaction. Yes I've been to school and I know what it's like and I never felt comfortable in that sort of environment.

I can't remember exactly what Yum said but something about when your homeless money means different things to you.

I think you can assume what I mean and if you get it wrong I can correct you. I'm not going to change the way I've been writing simply because you can't understand it.

Perhaps but then again this conversation isn't really important enough for me to consider doing that.

I assume you couldn't understand that sentence either since you didn't address the point and only stated that it was a run on sentence.

I agree that it is plausible homeless people do go on the internet but I'm skeptical when somebody claims they were formerly homeless or currently homeless on a political simulator site. Is it possible? Of course. Is it likely? Not really. Will I believe it? Not without proof. Have I learned not to voice these doubts because apparently 20 people will jump in to tell me what a prick I am and how I have terrible grammar? Yes.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yeah, I got that at school. Also toss "class" and "ability" in there as well though. Plus actually interacting with people in real life, which gives a much better impression of how people live than just interacting with them online. While the city I'm from is particularly diverse, I doubt it's that exceptional.


Which one was that?


Yes. That's the problem with run sentences that contain multiple ideas. There are a few different interpretations of the sentence in question depending exactly how you parse it. The absence of appropriate punctuation in the sentence does not tell the reader what was actually intended.


You're a high school student with crappy grammar. If your sentence composition was better, you could perhaps communicate your ideas more effectively and with less ambiguity.


Now who needs to improve their communication skills? (Also, that's another run on sentence.)

I know Yums isn't homeless, that's why I never said he was presently homeless. I have interacted with people on other message boards who were homeless and accessing the internet from a public library. That's unrelated to anyone here except to make your initial claim that someone couldn't have ever been homeless because they're on the internet now even more stupid than it was (since even currently homeless people can and do frequent message boards). Apparently you also missed Yums's post about the abundance of time to kill while homeless while you were busy writing his life's story for him.

Maybe but then again I speak with people during their free time and when they want to actually spend time communicating while at school it's sort of forced interaction. Yes I've been to school and I know what it's like and I never felt comfortable in that sort of environment.

I can't remember exactly what Yum said but something about when your homeless money means different things to you.

I think you can assume what I mean and if you get it wrong I can correct you. I'm not going to change the way I've been writing simply because you can't understand it.

Perhaps but then again this conversation isn't really important enough for me to consider doing that.

I assume you couldn't understand that sentence either since you didn't address the point and only stated that it was a run on sentence.

I agree that it is plausible homeless people do go on the internet but I'm skeptical when somebody claims they were formerly homeless or currently homeless on a political simulator site. Is it possible? Of course. Is it likely? Not really. Will I believe it? Not without proof. Have I learned not to voice these doubts because apparently 20 people will jump in to tell me what a prick I am and how I have terrible grammar? Yes.

Perhaps I shouldn't be picking on this, but why would you consider such a thing to be unlikely? As of 2014, over 600,000 people in the United States were homeless. While it's easy to get stuck out there, many do finally make it off of the streets, and even manage to achieve some level of stability in their lives. Some even have an interest in politics and the economy as a result of their experiences.

What is it, then? Do you believe that formerly homeless people don't have the vocabulary to make cogent arguments? Do you believe that we're unable to handle the technical specifics involved in turning on a computer, opening a browser, and typing "nationstates.net"? Do you believe that we don't enjoy games, especially ones that give us some illusion of power of the destiny of a nation? Or do you just think that we're all so blindly stupid as to be unable to follow the game or the discussions?

Don't get me wrong: As classist and wrongheaded as it is to see all homeless people as being stupid, I could actually understand that, since there are a LOT of stupid homeless people out there, including people who managed to stumble their way off of the streets through the help of various programs. However, as things stand, you're being skeptical without reason or cause, so I'm curious as to what led you to this conclusion.

[Cannot think of a name]

I agree that it is plausible homeless people do go on the internet but I'm skeptical when somebody claims they were formerly homeless or currently homeless on a political simulator site.

What becomes hilarious is when you get to explaining why you're skeptical. With each explanation it gets more and more ridiculous. And it reveals the various cracks in your inability to relate to human beings based on your assumptions. The fact that the bulk of your social interaction appears to be online does, however, explain a great deal. Doesn't make it any less hilarious, but at least now we know how you got here from there.

Is it possible? Of course. Is it likely? Not really.

There it is, there's the kind of goofy logic we've come to love. Why is it not likely? The reason will both surprise and entertain you...

Will I believe it? Not without proof.

That's some choice grade A ego right there, man. I mean, first of all, what the fuck difference does it make? Remember, you're the one who made personal biography an issue and then went 'wa wa wa' all the way home when that personal bio did not fit your hilariously awkward and goofy conclusions.

I mean, let's revisit the clownshow assumption that started this whole kerfuffle...

I'm talking about today, here, and now.

I'm not arguing that money is everything. I'm simply saying that the other stuff takes a backseat when you don't have it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has likely never been truly without in terms of food and shelter.

And have you ever truly gone without Yum? I highly doubt it considering you have internet access.

Fucking delicious. As if internet access is a legacy gift only handed down to the well to do unless they have ever fallen from grace...then no internet access for you! Not only that, but we then find out that this appeal to biography, this notion that only someone who has never experienced poverty would say these things which kind of implies that the one making the challenge would have at least some passing experience with it...it was made by a homeschooled upper middle class 17 year old who hasn't had to pay for shit. Oh sweet sweet jeebus. I get a little giggle every time I think about someone not only typing this out but vigorously defending it like it was a goddamn virtue.

And then, as if all of that wasn't enough, to have the unmitigated balls to discount the persons story because they answered a direct fucking question. Holy shit that's awesome. Let's roll that tape again, too:

No I just don't believe him in the first place. Why would he tell me a deeply personal story about his life just for the sake of prolonging an internet argument?

Oh man, that's fucking golden. "I asked him and he answered different than my assumption so must not be true." I know, I know, you gave some weird convoluted explanation that was some sort of blather about how if you just told someone they've never been poor who has suffered through a long and arduous period of their life that was a defining moment in his life like a smug little bastard they'd just go "Yes I've been poor" or something as a response to...wait, I have to collect myself to repeat this nonsense again..."you clearly haven't been poor because you're currently on the internet."

Oh man. That's just so stupid.

Oh right. Ego. I forgot this part was about the giant bouncy balls ego it takes for this whole thing, you know, where you insist not only on biographical information to validate someone's post but then want that information proven to you because I guess to the best of your knowledge once you've been homeless you're like, "Well fuck the internet." Or something. Or because answering direct challenges is immediately suspicious. Or whatever other hilarious and inconsistent reasoning you'll come up with next.

Have I learned not to voice these doubts because apparently 20 people will jump in to tell me what a prick I am and how I have terrible grammar? Yes.

One would have hoped that you'd have learned to not make wild assumptions based on goofy ass logic to dismiss other people's arguments and instead address them for their content and not spazz out when those nutty assumptions don't bear out. But baby steps.

But the best advice at this point I can is simple: Stay down. You have made it oh so much worse with every flailing bizarre defense of you're already bizarre assumptions. Stay down.

You stepped in it. In possibly the worst way, really. Not only did you make arguments so bad that they became low hanging fruit where even the least among us get to feel like giants destroying them, but you did it to frankly the nicest guy you're going to find in the Mos Esley of the interwebs. He won't even be mean to you when you virtually punched him in the dick by denying one of his defining life experiences (Oh yeah, I left that part of the ego bit out, that this whole story was concocted solely for your benefit and not something that has been organically part of who Yummers is during the course of his posting. That's some mighty fucking ego right there.) You basically took a shit in the yard of the only guy in the neighborhood who will not only return your ball if it went in his yard but show you how to throw a knuckleball while he was at it and tell you a pretty interesting story about Ty Cobb. You not only acted like a prick, you acted like a prick to someone who is practically beloved.

Stay down. Hope that entropy kicks in and we forget who you are again.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Sure for those, money and wealth is not always the ultimate goal in life, but the sad reality is that not only has this thread failed to mention the famous quote, but it is also a reality:

"Money makes the world go round."

[Infected Mushroom]

I see...

this is very interesting. It MIGHT be true (I know several evil people and I don't think any of them are very happy wholistically).

Its a fairly healthy moral and ideological framework, certainly better than the mindless pursuit of wealth that dominates our culture and society...

I remember being read the vana parva or the third book of the Mahabharata, which I believe captures the essence of humanity, when the Pandavs were in exile in the forests they understood the truth about detachment. When one person becomes attached to wealth, he would come to be ruined by it because people who are attached to things cannot see the world outside it. Even the Buddha had to leave all his material belongs and his kingship to truly find out about his happiness and the reason behind suffering.

do you subscribe to a form of Buddhism?

[Sebastianbourg]

Money (and health) are essential to happiness and life; without those two we are plagued with constant anguish. It is quixotic and even arrogant to claim otherwise.

[Jamjai]

money is part of surviving nowadays...for most people

[Nazi Flower Power]

Contrary to popular belief, you do not need money to be successful in life.

Your success may never be acknowledged by others and you might never receive material compensation for it, but truly great Art speaks for itself and you will know it when you have created it.

At that point you will likely find yourself dying with satisfaction regardless...

The two years I spent selling art on the sidewalk were very personally satisfying, even though I did not earn enough to have financial stability. (I did still have my savings from my old 9 to 5 office job to fall back on, but it was nerve-wracking to have to take that money out savings when I didn't know how I was going to replace it.) I was happier then than when I had a steady full-time job, and I am happier now just knowing that I took that chance to share my art.

The experiences Yumyum described from when he was homeless sound terrible, but there's a lot of middle ground between that and being rich, and you can certainly find happiness in that middle ground.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

@OP, that reminds me. You forgot to add "Lebowski" at the end of the title of this thread.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Contrary to popular belief, you do not need money to be successful in life.

Your success may never be acknowledged by others and you might never receive material compensation for it, but truly great Art speaks for itself and you will know it when you have created it.

At that point you will likely find yourself dying with satisfaction regardless...

The two years I spent selling art on the sidewalk were very personally satisfying, even though I did not earn enough to have financial stability. (I did still have my savings from my old 9 to 5 office job to fall back on, but it was nerve-wracking to have to take that money out savings when I didn't know how I was going to replace it.) I was happier then than when I had a steady full-time job, and I am happier now just knowing that I took that chance to share my art.

The experiences Yumyum described from when he was homeless sound terrible, but there's a lot of middle ground between that and being rich, and you can certainly find happiness in that middle ground.

I currently reside in that middle ground. My wife and I are both on disability, which means that we get a meager income, but it's supplemented through a small monthly stipend from my grandmother's estate, so we don't want for much, as our needs are simple. Before this thread veered into the personal, that's what I was trying to communicate: once I realized that no matter how much money I had, there would always be something just beyond my means that I wanted, I concluded that the only solution would be to shift my perspective to appreciating what I had rather than focusing on what I might desire. Now, I'm at an income level where this is possible, since my basic needs are met. If they weren't, then I'd be far more narrowly focused on ensuring that I was able to pay rent and put food on the table, which doesn't leave much time for satisfaction. However, so long as the basics are covered, I'm good.

[Bearon]

Maybe but then again I speak with people during their free time and when they want to actually spend time communicating while at school it's sort of forced interaction. Yes I've been to school and I know what it's like and I never felt comfortable in that sort of environment.

I can't remember exactly what Yum said but something about when your homeless money means different things to you.

I think you can assume what I mean and if you get it wrong I can correct you. I'm not going to change the way I've been writing simply because you can't understand it.

Perhaps but then again this conversation isn't really important enough for me to consider doing that.

I assume you couldn't understand that sentence either since you didn't address the point and only stated that it was a run on sentence.

I agree that it is plausible homeless people do go on the internet but I'm skeptical when somebody claims they were formerly homeless or currently homeless on a political simulator site. Is it possible? Of course. Is it likely? Not really. Will I believe it? Not without proof. Have I learned not to voice these doubts because apparently 20 people will jump in to tell me what a prick I am and how I have terrible grammar? Yes.

Perhaps I shouldn't be picking on this, but why would you consider such a thing to be unlikely? As of 2014, over 600,000 people in the United States were homeless. While it's easy to get stuck out there, many do finally make it off of the streets, and even manage to achieve some level of stability in their lives. Some even have an interest in politics and the economy as a result of their experiences.

What is it, then? Do you believe that formerly homeless people don't have the vocabulary to make cogent arguments? Do you believe that we're unable to handle the technical specifics involved in turning on a computer, opening a browser, and typing "nationstates.net"? Do you believe that we don't enjoy games, especially ones that give us some illusion of power of the destiny of a nation? Or do you just think that we're all so blindly stupid as to be unable to follow the game or the discussions?

Don't get me wrong: As classist and wrongheaded as it is to see all homeless people as being stupid, I could actually understand that, since there are a LOT of stupid homeless people out there, including people who managed to stumble their way off of the streets through the help of various programs. However, as things stand, you're being skeptical without reason or cause, so I'm curious as to what led you to this conclusion.

Ok so 600,000 people. There are around 300,000,000 people in the US. That's 0.2% of the population then. Let's say that there are around 12 million people that have been homeless at some point or are currently homeless. ( If that numbers way off sorry but I am just guesstimating currently. *Waits for somebody to comment on how guesstimating isn't a real word* ) That would be approximately 4% of the population. I'm guessing that there are around 250,000 active nations on nation states which is a political simulator game that yes I don't think people who were formerly homeless or are currently homeless are likely going to play. Aside from that there's just the fact that most of the NS population ( myself included ) are below the age of 18. Now I honestly have no idea what the stats are in my head for the likelihood of somebody claiming they were once or are currently homeless being true but I don't think the odds are good.

Honestly I've never met a homeless person and gotten to know them personally but I'm assuming somebody who went through those circumstances and survived would simply not care about a site like this thinking themselves above it or being put off by the amount of younger members here and in general it just being hard to find if they're not actively looking for a game like this. For people who are currently homeless I just don't think they'd be on here when they have the kinds of problems that are associated with homelessness to deal with.

Classist? Don't get me wrong I want for little since I have a family that I love, my mom makes excellent meals and the internet provides limitless entertainment but my Dad is the only one who works and he's a teacher. We never go out to eat, only go to the cheap theaters, only get our books through the library, me and my sisters ( *waits for comment about how its my sisters and I* ) don't have the newest iProduct and we entertain ourselves through playing soccer and basketball. I may not know what it's like to be homeless and I may be doubtful about people actually having experienced it when they claim to have but I in no way look down on anybody who's been homeless or think they're any stupider because of it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Perhaps I shouldn't be picking on this, but why would you consider such a thing to be unlikely? As of 2014, over 600,000 people in the United States were homeless. While it's easy to get stuck out there, many do finally make it off of the streets, and even manage to achieve some level of stability in their lives. Some even have an interest in politics and the economy as a result of their experiences.

What is it, then? Do you believe that formerly homeless people don't have the vocabulary to make cogent arguments? Do you believe that we're unable to handle the technical specifics involved in turning on a computer, opening a browser, and typing "nationstates.net"? Do you believe that we don't enjoy games, especially ones that give us some illusion of power of the destiny of a nation? Or do you just think that we're all so blindly stupid as to be unable to follow the game or the discussions?

Don't get me wrong: As classist and wrongheaded as it is to see all homeless people as being stupid, I could actually understand that, since there are a LOT of stupid homeless people out there, including people who managed to stumble their way off of the streets through the help of various programs. However, as things stand, you're being skeptical without reason or cause, so I'm curious as to what led you to this conclusion.

Ok so 600,000 people. There are around 300,000,000 people in the US. That's 0.2% of the population then. Let's say that there are around 12 million people that have been homeless at some point or are currently homeless. ( If that numbers way off sorry but I am just guesstimating currently. *Waits for somebody to comment on how guesstimating isn't a real word* ) That would be approximately 4% of the population. I'm guessing that there are around 250,000 active nations on nation states which is a political simulator game that yes I don't think people who were formerly homeless or are currently homeless are likely going to play. Aside from that there's just the fact that most of the NS population ( myself included ) are below the age of 18. Now I honestly have no idea what the stats are in my head for the likelihood of somebody claiming they were once or are currently homeless being true but I don't think the odds are good.

Honestly I've never met a homeless person and gotten to know them personally but I'm assuming somebody who went through those circumstances and survived would simply not care about a site like this thinking themselves above it or being put off by the amount of younger members here and in general it just being hard to find if they're not actively looking for a game like this. For people who are currently homeless I just don't think they'd be on here when they have the kinds of problems that are associated with homelessness to deal with.

Classist? Don't get me wrong I want for little since I have a family that I love, my mom makes excellent meals and the internet provides limitless entertainment but my Dad is the only one who works and he's a teacher. We never go out to eat, only go to the cheap theaters, only get our books through the library, me and my sisters ( *waits for comment about how its my sisters and I* ) don't have the newest iProduct and we entertain ourselves through playing soccer and basketball. I may not know what it's like to be homeless and I may be doubtful about people actually having experienced it but I in no way look down on anybody who's been homeless or think they're any stupider because of it.

Your assumptions are still classist. Why would someone who had been homeless not desire or seek out entertainment of this sort? Why would someone who had been homeless be put off by younger folks (and while those in their teens or twenties comprise a majority of this site, I can think of a few players off of the top of my head who are much closer to my age than yours)?

[Infected Mushroom]

@OP, that reminds me. You forgot to add "Lebowski" at the end of the title of this thread.

what do you mean?

[Imperializt Russia]

I know of one poster who claimed to have been homeless.
Can't recall the nation name, but he claimed to have lost his home to the police - he was co-sharing with a guy who was cooking meth (apparently without his knowledge), and the police seized the entire property.

He stated this while on a rant against minimum wages.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I know of one poster who claimed to have been homeless.
Can't recall the nation name, but he claimed to have lost his home to the police - he was co-sharing with a guy who was cooking meth (apparently without his knowledge), and the police seized the entire property.

He stated this while on a rant against minimum wages.

Now, THAT I might have a difficult time believing, since meth manufacture creates a particular smell, and there are very basic safety precautions that one must take in order to ensure that the house doesn't blow up.