godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:20 am
So, to you, if one person has 99 billion dollars, then they are not very wealthy.
Again, absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer.
Well, $99 billions is close to the absolute maximum:
So, to you if one has 99 billion dollars, then they are close to the 'absolute maximum' of being 'wealthy', but not yet being 'very wealthy'.
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
As of March 1, 2024, the richest person in the world is Bernard Arnault, the CEO of French luxury goods group LVMH; he's worth nearly $230 billion.
There are not that many people in between these two figures.
What does that matter?
To you human beings with 99 billion dollars are not 'very wealthy'.
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:20 am
And, what 'principle' are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?
I am not going to hand over half my net worth to someone who just provided me with some sex. Seriously, sex is not worth that much. That is why I only give an informal and verbal niqah contract governed by Islamic law. I certainly provide during the deal but not after. That also removes the incentive of trying to leave a marriage with cash and prizes.
Okay. Some things are more important to some people than other things are.
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:20 am
If a woman gives away half of her 'multi billion of dollars' to her husband that divorced her, then what exactly is the 'matter of principle' here, exactly?
Hypergamy. Women generally do not marry down.
What is so-called 'down' to some is not actually 'down' at all to others.
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
So, this scenario of a woman losing half her net worth in a divorce is rather unlikely.
Okay. But saying that it is 'rather unlikely' implies that it might not ever happen. Yet, it has already happened.
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
You confuse possibility with probability.
But I never thought about 'possibility' nor 'probability' here, let alone talked about them. So, how could I be confusing the two, and why did you even begin to presume that I was even thinking about the two here?
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Why discuss improbable situations?
I was not.
Is it an absolute impossibility forever more for a man to marry a woman for money?
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:20 am
The meek, by the way, do inherit the earth, and this cannot be refuted.
The offspring of meek women do inherit most of the assets, because meek women from financially humble families produce most of the children, even the children of wealthy men.
you could not be missing more of what I am actually saying and meaning here.
godelian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:02 pm
The demographic of so-called strong, independent women who don't need a man, remains increasingly childless, in spite of all the useless egg freezing going on.
Okay, if this is what you believe is true, then this must be true, to you, right?