3 ms·

> contradicts the point that there is no good reason to flee if you can't take your money. who said that there is no good reason to leave? i am saying that the

> contradicts the point that there is no good reason to flee if you can't take your money. who said that there is no good reason to leave? i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. it is a gamble. for example, right now it might be a good reason to leave ukraine, but great majority of people will stay, even if a war starts. i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>who said that there is no good reason to leave? The original poster: "What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?" Clearly there are a lot of valid reasons to leave even if you don't have your money (like gambling that leaving will save your life). People do it all the time. Someone said as much and you tried to refute them (perhaps not understanding their point). > i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. Yes it is clearer in retrospect. That said, millions of people have left their homes before they died and lived because of this, so it is clearly possible to make a gamble without future knowledge and be right. Many have also moved and been wrong. > i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland I don't think you can read my mind and I never said it was easy. Just that it is possible and people do it all the time. They make incredibly hard choices and sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong
- medo-bear 5y ago
  > "What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?" i understood the 'it' in this sentance to be one's cash/funds. you seem to understand the 'it' as the act of fleeing. i think that is where out disagreement comes from from there i responded to the following poster's claim that money is not a factor that influences people's decision to flee. i think this is flawed and suspect they are not talking from any experience
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Well Thanks for bearing with me. Indeed, I understood "it" to be escape, not the money. I could see your interpretation as well now that you point it out. Sorry for getting snarky

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>who said that there is no good reason to leave? The original poster: "What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?" Clearly there are a lot of valid reasons to leave even if you don't have your money (like gambling that leaving will save your life). People do it all the time. Someone said as much and you tried to refute them (perhaps not understanding their point). > i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. Yes it is clearer in retrospect. That said, millions of people have left their homes before they died and lived because of this, so it is clearly possible to make a gamble without future knowledge and be right. Many have also moved and been wrong. > i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland I don't think you can read my mind and I never said it was easy. Just that it is possible and people do it all the time. They make incredibly hard choices and sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong

medo-bear 5y ago
> "What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?" i understood the 'it' in this sentance to be one's cash/funds. you seem to understand the 'it' as the act of fleeing. i think that is where out disagreement comes from from there i responded to the following poster's claim that money is not a factor that influences people's decision to flee. i think this is flawed and suspect they are not talking from any experience
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Well Thanks for bearing with me. Indeed, I understood "it" to be escape, not the money. I could see your interpretation as well now that you point it out. Sorry for getting snarky