ForumGarden

Place a hundred dollar note and a lolly before a child.The child will reach for the candy. The child only Knows the immediate pleasure. The sweetness of the candy. The little one cannot conceive anything beyond it. Such is the childishness of mankind.

:-2

anyone else get the distinct taste of religious hypocriticism in that statement.

kingsley1929;1386150 wrote: Place a hundred dollar note and a lolly before a child.The child will reach for the candy. The child only Knows the immediate pleasure. The sweetness of the candy. The little one cannot conceive anything beyond it. Such is the childishness of mankind.


I find the little one to be very wise, living in the moment and unaffected by money.

littleCJelkton;1386196 wrote: anyone else get the distinct taste of religious hypocriticism in that statement.
How so? Explain, please.

I reckon it would depend on the age of the child. Any child over the age of 3-4 I think would take the cash.

A smart kid would take both

AnneBoleyn;1386200 wrote: How so? Explain, please.


are you saying

How so? .... Please( as in please explain)

or

How so? ..... Please(as in please you must be kidding)

as sarcasm is hard to point out when not able to view/hear all the non written forms of communication

oscar;1386206 wrote: A smart kid would take both
or take the 100 dollar bill buy 100 dollars worth of candy make a 50$ profit from re selling the candy to his friends for more than he bought them for, then continue to grow his profit and eventually have enough money to buy out the candy store and eventually monopolize the candy industry except for that partner he started out with that went on to sell bite sized chocolates in a candy coated shell...... Wait that already happened with the Hershey company.

are you saying

How so? .... Please( as in please explain)

or

How so? ..... Please(as in please you must be kidding)
Both.

AnneBoleyn;1386275 wrote: Both.


being a part of humankind as I am, you are, and kingsly is the statement is trying to be give understanding to ideals it states mankind has as much of an understanding of as a child does of economic values, not only that but also broadly paints a picture that children can't understand simple economy. I am not sure just about every kid but quite a few children I know understands that when they get a candy from the shelf they have to bring it to the counter for their parents to pay for it some even understand that their parents need to go to a machine to get the money.

littleCJelkton;1386278 wrote: being a part of humankind as I am, you are, and kingsly is the statement is trying to be give understanding to ideals it states mankind has as much of an understanding of as a child does of economic values, not only that but also broadly paints a picture that children can't understand simple economy. I am not sure just about every kid but quite a few children I know understands that when they get a candy from the shelf they have to bring it to the counter for their parents to pay for it some even understand that their parents need to go to a machine to get the money.


How can you complicate simplicity ?

The innocence of a child doesn't correlate the instant pleasure of sweets with a scrap of paper, because that is what the dollar bill is, until education tells you it has a value above the materials that it is made from.

Bruv;1386296 wrote: How can you complicate simplicity ?

The innocence of a child doesn't correlate the instant pleasure of sweets with a scrap of paper, because that is what the dollar bill is, until education tells you it has a value above the materials that it is made from.


well we never were particular of what a child was were we at what age do you say the corelation is made?? What is the age of a human being that too you is defined as a child??

littleCJelkton;1386332 wrote: well we never were particular of what a child was were we at what age do you say the corelation is made?? What is the age of a human being that too you is defined as a child??


I am having a problem making sense of your phrasing........could be me.

The way the very simple question is formed, I would suggest the 'child' is of a young enough age not to have had to concern themselves with money and it's value, a sweet is far more appealing than a strange bit of paper, and even if the monies value is known the reward is not instant while the sweet is.

By the same token, if you showed the child that the hundred dollar bill will open a plexiglass door to the pile of candy bars (that he can also see), I'm sure he'll quickly learn that he can make that "immediate pleasure" last a hell of long time.

Bruv;1386341 wrote: I am having a problem making sense of your phrasing........could be me.

The way the very simple question is formed, I would suggest the 'child' is of a young enough age not to have had to concern themselves with money and it's value, a sweet is far more appealing than a strange bit of paper, and even if the monies value is known the reward is not instant while the sweet is.
a Child could be of the age not to know that the sweet candy tasted any better than say broccoli or asparagus one could say the child is not totally innocent as it has come to know that a candy is sweet and to some how know it is better tasting than something green.

littleCJelkton;1386406 wrote: a Child could be of the age not to know that the sweet candy tasted any better than say broccoli or asparagus one could say the child is not totally innocent as it has come to know that a candy is sweet and to some how know it is better tasting than something green.


You do have a great ability to over complicate things don't you ?

Ever seen GREEN sweets ? I suspect the child has.

Think the Americans call that a curve ball ?

Mind boggling diversion.........every bodies doing it.

kingsley1929;1386150 wrote: Place a hundred dollar note and a lolly before a child.The child will reach for the candy. The child only Knows the immediate pleasure. The sweetness of the candy. The little one cannot conceive anything beyond it. Such is the childishness of mankind.


That's how religion works, give children candy before they are old enough better and then when they are older the sugar rush is so addictive it takes real strength of character to say no - especially when all those around you keep taking the candy and will ostracise you if you refuse or try and convince them it's bad for them. They will even go to war against other candy manufacturers because it's the wrong flavour.

gmc;1386434 wrote: That's how religion works, give children candy before they are old enough better and then when they are older the sugar rush is so addictive it takes real strength of character to say no - especially when all those around you keep taking the candy and will ostracise you if you refuse or try and convince them it's bad for them. They will even go to war against other candy manufacturers because it's the wrong flavour.
You're diabetic, aren't you?

Accountable;1386435 wrote: You're diabetic, aren't you?


Actually no. I've always been able to resist the corporate candy in the form of drinks with too much sugar in them so not only am i not diabetic i still have my own teeth. Sheer fluke actually. I've never liked coke or it's numerous offshoots except in small doses. The great pepsi or coke debate has never interested me.

gmc;1386496 wrote: Actually no. I've always been able to resist the corporate candy in the form of drinks with too much sugar in them so not only am i not diabetic i still have my own teeth. Sheer fluke actually. I've never liked coke or it's numerous offshoots except in small doses. The great pepsi or coke debate has never interested me.
Me either. Any sane person knows it's Coke, hands down.

Bruv;1386429 wrote: You do have a great ability to over complicate things don't you ?

Ever seen GREEN sweets ? I suspect the child has.

Think the Americans call that a curve ball ?

Mind boggling diversion.........every bodies doing it.
I am sorry you either ruse to not have the ability or just plain don't have the ability to understand that the complication with this statement is the simplicity of the statement as someones idea of a child might differ from another idea of a child or one's idea of a what the age of a person has to be to be considered a child is may differ among many people. Also, what age a human begins to define things as sweet bitter sour and more over what age a person begins to know that the sweet item taste better than a bitter one and begin to want a sweet item over something else.

kingsley1929;1386150 wrote: Place a hundred dollar note and a lolly before a child.The child will reach for the candy. The child only Knows the immediate pleasure. The sweetness of the candy. The little one cannot conceive anything beyond it. Such is the childishness of mankind.


littleCJelkton;1386503 wrote: I am sorry you either ruse to not have the ability or just plain don't have the ability to understand that the complication with this statement is the simplicity of the statement as someones idea of a child might differ from another idea of a child or one's idea of a what the age of a person has to be to be considered a child is may differ among many people. Also, what age a human begins to define things as sweet bitter sour and more over what age a person begins to know that the sweet item taste better than a bitter one and begin to want a sweet item over something else.


I ruse you not.

The very simplistic and simple opening post was meant to be.....simple.

We could discuss the the niceties of which sweet was on offer, or if the dollar note was a bright new crisp one. That is not the point.

The question is to show how our priorities change with the acquisition of knowledge, how innocent and uncomplicated a child's life is without the baggage of needing to consider the future. Of how it might be better to live in the moment, to enjoy what you have now and not to put off the pleasures of life until a later time. It also says something about greed, in that we might be better forgoing instant pleasure now, so we might enjoy more later.

you are a wise one Bruv. Little c enjoys complicating things a bit..He's probably a nice bloke really??

Good one YZGI! Chuckle...

Bruv;1386546 wrote: I ruse you not.

The very simplistic and simple opening post was meant to be.....simple.

We could discuss the the niceties of which sweet was on offer, or if the dollar note was a bright new crisp one. That is not the point.

The question is to show how our priorities change with the acquisition of knowledge, how innocent and uncomplicated a child's life is without the baggage of needing to consider the future. Of how it might be better to live in the moment, to enjoy what you have now and not to put off the pleasures of life until a later time. It also says something about greed, in that we might be better forgoing instant pleasure now, so we might enjoy more later.


So let's see being the child's mind I have come to know would only know of the instant gratification. So Are you stating the original statement is about how kids enjoy instant gratification and we should too, or are you stating by just enjoying that instant gratification that kids are in someway greedy by being ignorant of the knowledge that they could enjoying more candy later by taking the bill. Or are you saying that knowledge makes us greedy and knowledge is something that a child should not be given so that a child's innocent nature is left untarnished(which sounds a lot like the apple adam+eve bit)???

kingsley1929;1386582 wrote: you are a wise one Bruv. Little c enjoys complicating things a bit..He's probably a nice bloke really??


No doubt he is a nice guy, why the question mark ?

gmc;1386434 wrote: That's how religion works, give children candy before they are old enough better and then when they are older the sugar rush is so addictive it takes real strength of character to say no - especially when all those around you keep taking the candy and will ostracise you if you refuse or try and convince them it's bad for them. They will even go to war against other candy manufacturers because it's the wrong flavour. Now I find that Interesting because I wasn't allowed sweets as a kid. My parents rather fancied the Idea of me keeping my teeth as long as possible.... Now as an adult, I have no desire for sweet things what so ever, In fact, I am In heaven at the Sainsbury cheese counter. That to me, Is my sweet shop. I also visit a Turkish Deli once a week to stock up on my Chorizo, Olives, garlic, chilli's etc.

littleCJelkton;1386584 wrote: So let's see being the child's mind I have come to know would only know of the instant gratification. So Are you stating the original statement is about how kids enjoy instant gratification and we should too, or are you stating by just enjoying that instant gratification that kids are in someway greedy by being ignorant of the knowledge that they could enjoying more candy later by taking the bill. Or are you saying that knowledge makes us greedy and knowledge is something that a child should not be given so that a child's innocent nature is left untarnished(which sounds a lot like the apple adam+eve bit)???


Now I am not too sure if you are ruseing me......or if ruseing is a word.

Stop thinking too deeply.......put your childlike head on.

Given the choice of a tatty piece of paper, that you have no prior knowledge and cannot know it's worth, and the chance to pop a succulent mouth watering and instantly rewarding piece of sugar into your mouth.

The "Child" is short hand for innocence, lack of guile, simplicity in a complicated world.

The final line questions whether that is the correct approach to life, whether it is better to live for the moment, with our credit cards, living now paying later.

It is also a statement condemning mankind for living in a childlike way, using resources without considering the consequences.



Quite simple really.........(grrrr kingsley.....over to you)

Bruv;1386631 wrote: Now I am not too sure if you are ruseing me......or if ruseing is a word.

Stop thinking too deeply.......put your childlike head on.

Given the choice of a tatty piece of paper, that you have no prior knowledge and cannot know it's worth, and the chance to pop a succulent mouth watering and instantly rewarding piece of sugar into your mouth.

The "Child" is short hand for innocence, lack of guile, simplicity in a complicated world.

The final line questions whether that is the correct approach to life, whether it is better to live for the moment, with our credit cards, living now paying later.

It is also a statement condemning mankind for living in a childlike way, using resources without considering the consequences.



Quite simple really.........(grrrr kingsley.....over to you)


yes, or one could take it that one who always looks ahead into the future will never stop and enjoy the sweets of today, thus again in it's simplicity it leaves it open for interpretation which again is quality that is religiously undertone.

littleCJelkton;1386651 wrote: yes, or one could take it that one who always looks ahead into the future will never stop and enjoy the sweets of today, thus again in it's simplicity it leaves it open for interpretation which again is quality that is religiously undertone.


And I thought you was winding me up, trying to get me to expand endlessly while you chuckled in the back ground at my struggle to explain.

And now you have come up with yet another slant on it.

Bruv;1386652 wrote: And I thought you was winding me up, trying to get me to expand endlessly while you chuckled in the back ground at my struggle to explain.

And now you have come up with yet another slant on it.


that is what this and other quotes that are so open to interpretation are not really that great at all, it is like if I Just said



Tree

A hundred different people would think about a hundred different trees, but if I were to say Palm Tree, Pine Tree, Walnut, Oak, Hickory, Willow. There are very few people who would open as to what those trees looked like to question, the setting in which those trees are in is another thing so the more detail the better which to be detailed requires knowledge

Okay I'm confused are we talking about the uninhibited brain of a small child or religion?

fuzzywuzzy;1386726 wrote: Okay I'm confused are we talking about the uninhibited brain of a small child or religion?


Sex, everything eventually is all about sex.

EEEWWWHHHHHHH!!!! Not that business again?

I don't think I've ever incorporated sex and candy before but I'll try anything once. Fairy floss? or hard boiled?

fuzzywuzzy;1386726 wrote: Okay I'm confused are we talking about the uninhibited brain of a small child or religion?


I believe we are talking about how

kingsley1929;1386150 wrote: Place a hundred dollar note and a lolly before a child.The child will reach for the candy. The child only Knows the immediate pleasure. The sweetness of the candy. The little one cannot conceive anything beyond it. Such is the childishness of mankind.


in it's simplicity is religiously undertoned philosophic view as with most things religious it is not detailed enough so one's person though of a child is of a human at a certain age, and another view may years older or younger. Also at what age does a human recognize basic economics, at what age does a child begin to want candy over veggies or meat some people don't even like candy throughout their life. All of this is the undescriptive part of this quote that makes it so inconclusive when trying to apply it to yet another broad term of Mankind. This type of broad not detailed view brings with it person(s) who believe their view of "what a child is what age a child should like sweets. etc" is the only right view to have and everybody else must convert to this view of children or they are in someway a lesser person.

YZGI;1386803 wrote: Sex, everything eventually is all about sex.


Well If you want to make the kids to have broad swathing views of what they should be, you would have to have sex.

I'm a cheese man myself Osk. Not into chorizos though.

No need for confusion Fuzz. Keep things simple.

YZGI: Do you do anything between sex YZ?

try them both Fuzz. Could be interesting!

Interesting. I like a bit of sex myself YZ, slowing down a bit though. Everything, I don't think so.

kingsley1929;1387080 wrote: YZGI: Do you do anything between sex YZ?


kingsley1929;1387083 wrote: Interesting. I like a bit of sex myself YZ, slowing down a bit though. Everything, I don't think so.


Good point, be sure and take everything I post literally. I am sure all the members here will give you the same advice about me.

Of course YZGI does stuff between sex .....sex isn't it YZGI?

" the awkward moment when your sarcasm is so advanced that people think you're stupid."