Love or money?

We're still animals, regardless of what we evolved from. We move freely, give birth to young, eat, sleep, and numerous other things that animals do. We're even classified as mammals (which are a group of animals). So I'm afraid your point isn't valid, Tim.

Originally Posted by Freedom G

to be truly happy I feel you do need love.

False.

And its far more valuable than money.

You can't say that for sure. Love can't be measured, so you can't give it a definite price. =/

And money is not forever, what if the market crashes, you get robbed, or your identity gets stolen, there goes your money and you're all alone and will die alone, an empty person.

First of all, none of the above catastrophes guarantee bankruptcy. If someone is smart enough to amass a fortune, they'll undoubtedly be smart enough to protect it.

And secondly, just because you don't have love doesn't mean you don't have friendship. Even if you don't have someone you love, there's nothing to say you'll die alone.

True love does last forever and you'll never be alone and will be happy.

False. True love ends just like any other type of feeling, especially when faced with certain obstacles.

Originally Posted by Lysis

Alas the selfishness of those who value material possessions over love. Woe to them, for they know not the meaning of true love.

Says who? Just because someone values material possessions over love doesn't mean they don't understand the nature of true love. It's perfectly possible to understand it and not prefer it. =/

Originally Posted by Yamari

Love, definitely. People who prefer money are usually greedy and I don't want to be thought of as greedy. They don't want to loan money to anybody as a nice favor, they want it all for themselves. I don't want to wind up like that.

Gotta love sweeping generalizations.

Just look at the huge percentage of people in the US who are in poverty right now.

Just look at divorce rates.

Originally Posted by Yamari

Seems you've forgotten one little thing, Tim. Humans are animals.

We're not, actually.

We can survive without money just as other animals can. Think of cavemen and indians. They hunt for food and they live off of it. I don't see any money being needed there.

You're right. Money isn't needed, but it makes life easier. Not simpler, mind you, but easier.

Originally Posted by Count Cutflaik

I'm afraid humans aren't 100% animals, dear.

By definition, we're not even animals at all.

Originally Posted by Yamari

I'm afraid they are, Tim. Unless you can prove me wrong.

Done.

Dictionary.com.

We're still animals, regardless of what we evolved from. We move freely, give birth to young, eat, sleep, and numerous other things that animals do. We're even classified as mammals (which are a group of animals). So I'm afraid your point isn't valid, Tim.

See above.

I've come to realize that love, while desirable, is still only an emotion. Call it as "true" as you desire, but that doesn't change the nature of it. It's not something magical or mystical that somehow makes all of life's problems go away. And while the euphoric feeling that accompanies it might make you think otherwise, you're perfectly capable of leading a happy, fulfilling life without it.

Money, on the other hand, is pretty much needed to survive in the world humans have established for themselves. It's not something evil that corrupts us, like many seem to think. It's simply something that can be used in any way one desires. Perhaps unfortunately, the manner in which we use it often mirrors our inner personality and desires.

So money it is for me.

If we're not animals, then why are we classified as mammals?

Because we fit the definition of mammals. We're still mammals, of course. But the very definition of "animals" excludes us specifically.

Originally Posted by Aex

Because we fit the definition of mammals. We're still mammals, of course. But the very definition of "animals" excludes us specifically.

That doesn't make sense. Mammals are animals. We are mammals. Therefore, we are animals.

I'd prefer love. Because love can mean a lot of things, like familial affection, having friends that are very close, or having a romantic lover, etc.
Money is, well, money.

Originally Posted by Yamari

That doesn't make sense. Mammals are animals. We are mammals. Therefore, we are animals.

No, therefore nothing. The definition of animals specifically states that humans don't qualify. Whether or not they're mammals is of no consequence. The definition of animals is basically, "All mammals except humans."

Originally Posted by Aex

No, therefore nothing. The definition of animals specifically states that humans don't qualify. Whether or not they're mammals is of no consequence. The definition of animals is basically, "All mammals except humans."

Thank you for the extended explantion, I couldn't, since my english isn't that great.

Love, definitely. Money is great to have, and all, but it's worthless if you can't share it with someone special. =\

Originally Posted by Noob Saibot

No, it's not. Look at animals, do they have money? no. Do they rely on their local grocery store for food? no. Do they survive? yes. (well, most of them do)

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that animals don't express love either...

And, at Aex: Humans are indeed animals. Learn to use a dictionary properly.



In this image, definition 1 clearly states that humans are indeed animals. Definition 2 is the same as definition 1, only excluding humans. These are separate and different definitions, and have different meanings. They are essentially mutually exclusive. They don't both qualify at the same time. When I say humans are animals, I am referring to definition 1. Definition 2 does not disqualify or neutralize definition 1, it does not add on to definition 1, the only thing it does is define "animal" differently than definition 1.

Learn how dictionaries work please.

Also note that definition 3 includes humans as well.

Originally Posted by Aex

No, therefore nothing. The definition of animals specifically states that humans don't qualify. Whether or not they're mammals is of no consequence. The definition of animals is basically, "All mammals except humans."

I still don't think that makes sense.

It doesn't make sense because it isn't true. He's using the second definition of animal as if the first definition doesn't qualify. In a dictionary alternate definitions are listed. Just because one alternate definition says one thing, it doesn't make the other definitions false.

Ha ha. Oh, well then, please excuse that unbelievably ridiculous mistake on my part. I'm apparently not accustomed enough with some of the more infinitesimal functions of a dictionary, and that has fatally impeded my ability to argue on an internet forum. Gah, what am I doing with my life?

I maintain that humans are not animals. If for no other reason than I like definition two better than definition one. And that's my right as an infinitely stubborn son of a gun.

I can be rich and have love but can't love and be rich, so therefore I choose money so then I shall find someone to love. Then I have both, I'd rather been rich and loved than poor and loved.

Money, definitely.

I quite like wearing boots until they wear through, and I'm not fussed about much else if it gets the job done, and new things... don't carry the same weight.

I'm the kind of person who can live quite happily with a paintbrush and a violin. And, since I am doing so -- I can't see how a pile of copper can give me anything better by replacing my coat with the new model twice a month, or giving me a nice, shiny home with sliding doors. I mean, it might be nice -- and I could be alone as lavishly as I liked, but it's not for me.

So love, definitely.

And humans do everything animals do. And we're classed as an animal, on account of being a living thing that isn't a plant. And since no-one's presented any evidence otherwise, I'm inclined to stick to the idea that, yeah, we are animals.

Unless you're a Christian, in which case yeah -- you wouldn't consider humans animals, because they think animals have no soul and humans do. But whatever.

Future stole my post

I love money. Money lets me buy stuff that makes me happy. If I had lots of money, I wouldn't have to worry about things as much. Money is a good thing to have.

I love love. I love being in love. I don't care what it does to me. (I CAN STILL HAVE A SONG LYRIC IN MY POST, TOO.) If I couldn't feel love, then I wouldn't be very happy.

So, money makes me happy, so does love. If I didn't have money, I could still be happy maybe. I don't think I could be happy without love.

In conclusion, I'll take both.

I'd rather have love, because I'd rather live a normal-budget life with a wife that I love and who loves me back than haviong all the money in the world with to be with.

I'm going with money. I've given up on love. Cash is a bit harder to give up.

Love is everlasting. Money is just a convenient fiction we use.