Millionaires and celebrities can sometimes give large amounts of money to people and for this they are praised, so is the objection that people hold one of the percentage of your funds that you are offering? Is it more acceptable for a
millionaire to give someone £1,000 than for someone who has £2,000 to give half of that away? This may be considered a logical view to take, except that the money would surely mean more from someone who had less to offer? The millionaire can
easily afford the £1,000 and much more, but surely if someone is willing to give you half the money they have then it means more? Or could it be that the problem is more the connotation of taking the money? In my example the celebrity would
probably donate money to "charity", perhaps people see the attempt to give you money as treating you like a charity case? But then again, friends help eachother every day, so why should it be different just because money is involved, especially
if the money does not hold the value that people seem to attribute to it?
Perhaps the issue is that humanity is not generally a trusting race? For someone to have given you that much money there must be some kind of catch, do they expect something in return? But surely, if it is a friend offering you the money, you
should be able to trust them enough to take the money, otherwise why are they your friend?
Maybe this is just one of those things that I will never understand about your species? Yes that seems more likely. Yes I think we'll go with "you people are odd for placing far too much value in (to quote a famous Douglas Adams series) small
green pieces of paper." Remember people, it only has the value which you allow it to have...
Quote of the day
Todays QoTD is brought to you by Steven Weinberg:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
Tune in next time for another episode of my ramblings.
Back to blog main