[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]It's right both ways.[/QUOTE]

No its not. Calling the lust for money evil is not the same as calling money itself evil. This is a frequent topic discussed in sermons in churches all the time to make that distinction clear.

More than one people has said it. One could say that money, even just by existing, is evil. I'm not going to derail this thread, but just because you've only heard it one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go multiple ways.

Have you stopped lying more than George Bush?

I don't like that 'proof' because the first line is incorrect. Girls require time and money, true, but they are not equivalent to time and money, which is where the proof fails.

Oh, right, just like

Life without drugs = teh crap

He has a valid point. If we didn't have something to entertain ourselves, life would be a very much paler version of what it is.

All we need to survive, technically, is water and food. However living in a dark cell somewhere would be kind of crappy.

BTW, I notice that some people are taking that joke about girls seriously. For that you all get a dope slap.

Only kinda crappy if we KNEW better things existed. If the Socratic cave were our life and all we chose to see, as it is in many ways now, most people would be prefectly happy, and only a few would wonder whether there were more to life.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]One could say that money, even just by existing, is evil.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but if one said that, they'd be horribly, horribly wrong, and i'd be prepared to argue at length about it. but, a) you didn't say you thought that, and b) i don't want to derail this, either, so i'll jsut shut up. yay!

We're going through our world history book and I've come to realise that without RTS's I'd be just as clueless as the rest of the class is right now. Thanks to them though, I can say "Sargon of Arkod? Wasn't that the guy who had a whip in EE? I know him. He's my homedog."