COMMENTS:
Absolutely not. However, there are some, perhaps many, walthy people who are immoral, but being wealthy does not necessarily make one immoral. The opportunity to become"wealthy" drives innovation and invention, which is probably why you are capable of buying the computer you used with the software it uses to post this ballot in the first place. Notice the level of innovation and invention in the US vs. Russia, Japan vs. China, South vs. North Korea?
But yes... The abundance of wealth within the richest percentile of western nations compared with the extreme poverty of two thirds of the world's population is an obscene imbalance.
Being wealthy does not inherently mean that the individuals themselves are immoral, but the disparitys between the richest percentiles of the world individuals, and the lowest suggests they are probably benefiting somewhat from certain immoral acts of their ancestors, which have gathered the wealth in certain geographical and societal areas.
Or by certain immoral acts of the British and/or other empires who overran their lands.
Yes, because behind every fortune is a crime.
I'd mark it as closer to being highly obscene, particularly for that subset of the fabulously wealthy who do nothing more than party all day and night (Miz Hilton, are you listening?)
Wealthy people who are rich through hard work should enjoy their lives without being made to feel guilty by preaching left-wing do-gooders. If the rich want to help the poor, well fair do's to them otherwise the guilt trippers themselves can do it.
A lot of these people got rich off the sweat of the poor. A lot of the wealthy make a lot of money off poor people because there's so many of them.
I once went on a job interview and the first pitch was how much money they had earned and what nice, new houses they had and then they wanted me to come up with a $600 investment to sell their shitty product. I tried ratting them out to the authorities only to find out this scam is perfectly legal.
No. That's like asking ,that with so much sickness and suffering in the world,isn't it immoral to be healthy.
No. This is one of the funny little things that the Democrat party is doing to further dumbdown America. They weren't successful in feminizing them, so now they will come up with an alternative reality in which any immorality is moral and any morality is immorality. First you must destroy the family. The state must take the place of the family.
Viva Marx.
The three most impactful people, the three who have changed the world more than any other are Germans: Martin Luther, Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.
None of them did any good but there are still plentiful lefty useful idiots out there ready and willing to take up the mandate of depravity and inhumanity.
I hope not, as most likely, I could buy and sell anyone on this site several times over. Man, why am I even bothering discussing this with the likes of you people!?
Kidding of course. [smile:wink}
It's what you do with the wealth, as much as how you view the wealth. If you love it, live for it and need it, that's immoral. If you don't help others, particularly when there is such need and poverty, that is immoral. As I've grown up, I've become acutely aware of the disparity between the real haves and the real have not's. To walk out of a multi-million dollar apartment, have all the doors opened for you by doormen and security guards and have one doorman hold an umbrella over your head while you wait for a cab on a rainy day, all being just a kid and knowing that the guy hobbling towards you on the sidewalk is probably so hungry it hurts, that's heart breaking. It should make the world cry to think of how hard billions have it on this rock we call earth.
It's not that you have it but how you use it.
|
