Okay. This will be my last comment in this chain. A normal article would say: Here's why you should do X. And then it would explain why you should do X. This a

Okay. This will be my last comment in this chain. A normal article would say: Here's why you should do X. And then it would explain why you should do X. This article does not do this. It makes a universal statement about the immorality of being a burden, and says if you're a burden you don't deserve your passions. And it fills the rest of the space with strange anecdotes about Santiago, and ridiculous judgments from a man who, from what I can tell, followed his passions to his paycheck. If the only interesting part of an article is in my head, why was the article written? This article provides absolutely no interesting insight at all. I know meaning has been a hard sell in this conversation, but... The difference between my conditional statement and a question, is that in my statement I'm only providing a solution to a problem, not defining the problem. The theme of my article would be "what to do if you need a job," not "you need a job." I'm not trying to provide clarity into the "why" just the "what." That's fundamentally different than this article. I don't have a special exemption for burden. I'm not dissecting the sentence. I just look for substance in the things I read, I didn't find any here.