Money is not happiness

Money is a concrete medium that represents the work a person has made. With this medium people can obtain material elements, changing the money for the thing. Making this change, people can have many pluses like solving their necessities (food, water, home, transport, light), have a good social status (because he will take best things that others), get pleasure and more things than others (like travels to other countries, go to deluxe hotels, buy marc things, etc.), have more health (because he can pay a medicine, doctor, hospital). In summary, the money can buy many material things, but not happiness because happiness is not material. Material things do not give happiness, and happiness is personal.

Happiness is a fact only present in the nature of human, not in animals, not in insects, and less in unanimated elements, like rocks, cars, earth, etc. Happiness isn´t a thing that scientists can examine because it is proper of humans, and if they examine humans, the experts can´t define what part of the brain produces happiness; they can understand that happiness is immaterial, that it isn´t matter. Then the money can´t buy the happiness because the verb "buy" is only applied to tangible things, for this reason as happiness is immaterial, it can´t be bought with money.

The material things can be bought with money, but they do not give happiness because they are not forever. What is the maximum life time for the material things? A car can last from 5 to 15 years, a T-shirt 3 to 10 years, soccer shoes 1 to 2 years, a new cell phone 3 to 6 months, a super hamburger of Pecos Bill 30 to 60 minutes. This is the reason why material things do not give happiness, they are not durable like a friendship, a family, a son, God. These things produce happiness, and the money can´t buy them. All persons have a personal and individual happiness because it is immaterial and depends on each person. For example to help the affirmation is, that persona "A" can be happy with a family, and person "B" will be happy dedicating his/her life to God. The happiness depends on each person, and he will search for it accordingly. Then happiness can´t be bought since this is personal.

In conclusion money can´t buy happiness because happiness is immaterial, happiness isn’t a thing with a limited lifetime; and because happiness is personal of each human, so money can´t buy it.

Review

The money(Money) (is) not is happiness

The money(Money) is a concrete medium that represents the work a person has made. With this medium people can obtain material elements, changing the money for the thing. Making this change, people can have many pluses like solving their necessities (food, water, home, transport, light), have a good social status (because he will take best things that others), can get pleasure and more things than others (like travels to other countries, go to deluxe hotels, buy marc things, etc.), have more health (because he can pay a medicine, doctor, hospital). In summary, the money can buy many material things, but not happiness because happiness is not material(,)(.) material(Material) things do not give the happiness, and happiness is personal.

Happiness is a fact only present in the nature of human, not in animals, not in insects, and less in unanimated elements, like rocks, cars, earth, etc. Happiness isn´t a thing that scientists can examine because (it) is proper of humans, and if they examine humans, the experts can´t defined(define) in what part of the brain produce(produces) the happiness; then(they) can understand that happiness is immaterial, that it isn´t matter. Then the money can´t buy the happiness because the verb "buy" is only applicate(applied) to tangible things, for this reason as happiness is immaterial(,) it can´t be bought with money.

The material things can be bought by(with) the money, but it(they) does(do) not give happiness because is(they are not) momentarily(forever)(,)(.) what(What) is the maximum (life) time that(for) the material things? a(A) car (can last from) 5 to 15 years, a T-shirt 3 to 10 years, soccer shoes 1 to 2 years, a new cell phone 3 to 6 mouths(months), a super hamburger of Pecos Bill 30 to 60 minutes. This is the reason why material things do not gives(give) happiness(,) it(they) is(are) not durable like a friendship, a family, a son, God. These things produce happiness, and the money can´t buy (them). All persons have a personal and individual happiness because it is immaterial and depends of(on) each person. For example to help the affirmation is, that persona "A" can be happy with a family, and person "B" will be happy dedicating his/her life to God. The happiness depends of(on) each person, (and) he will search (for it accordingly). Then (happiness) can´t (be) buy(bought) it, if(since) this is personal.

In conclusion money can´t buy happiness because happiness is immaterial, (happiness isn’t a thing with a limited lifetime)then can´t buy a thing that isn´t durably; and because happiness is personal of each human,(so) money can´t buy it.

The money not is happiness

The money is a concrete medium that represents the work a person has made. With this medium people can obtain material elements, changing the money for the thing. Making this change, people can have many pluses like solving their necessities (food, water, home, transport, light), have a good social status (because he will take best things that others), can get pleasure and more things than others (like travels to other countries, go to deluxe hotels, buy marc things, etc.), have more health (because he can pay a medicine, doctor, hospital). In summary, the money can buy many material things, but not happiness because happiness is not material, material things do not give the happiness, and happiness is personal.

Happiness is a fact only present in the nature of human, not in animals, not in insects, and less in unanimated elements, like rocks, cars, earth, etc. Happiness isn´t a thing that scientists can examine because is proper of humans, and if they examine humans, the experts can´t defined in what part of the brain produce the happiness; then can understand that happiness is immaterial, that it isn´t matter. Then the money can´t buy the happiness because the verb "buy" is only applicate to tangible things, for this reason as happiness is immaterial it can´t be bought with money.

The material things can be bought by the money, but it does not give happiness because is momentarily, what is the maximum time that the material things? a car 5 to 15 years, a T-shirt 3 to 10 years, soccer shoes 1 to 2 years, a new cell phone 3 to 6 mouths, a super hamburger of Pecos Bill 30 to 60 minutes. This is the reason why material things do not gives happiness it is not durable like a friendship, a family, a son, God. These things produce happiness, and the money can´t buy then.

All persons have a personal and individual happiness because it is immaterial and depends of each person. For example to help the affirmation is, that persona "A" can be happy with a family, and person "B" will be happy dedicating his/her life to God. The happiness depends of each person, he will search. Then can´t buy it, if this is personal.

In conclusion money can´t buy happiness because happiness is immaterial, then can´t buy a thing that isn´t durably; and because happiness is personal of each human, money can´t buy it.

Paper 2 Activity 5

Post Paper 2 Activity 5

No to banning the fast food to youngsters

Actually one of the most consumed things, especially in young people, is the fast food. The fact that makes food, fast food is the quickly form that food is serviced. The problem of this type of food is the health dangers, and then many people look these food like death itself. There is the reason why many people don´t like that young people eat fast food. But a bad idea continues that banning the fast food to youngsters is not the solution because fast food isn´t a big danger. Banning the fast food would be banning the freedom of youngsters, and it would be unjust banning the fast food only to people under the age of 18.

The danger of fast food is the calories that it has which produces fat in the body. The excess of this element causes health damage. Taking for example the famous restaurant McDonald´s, there fries have 400 calories per 100 grams; a BigMac hamburger has 540 calories, while the bacon cheeseburger Angus weighs 790. Calories for other dining options are Chicken McNuggets which contain 190 to 460, Filet-O-Fish at 380, McRib sandwich 500, and McFlurry 630 calories. But this only affects if the person consumes more than he needs, the excess is the real problem, that is the reason why fast food isn´t a big danger. Banning the fast food will be banning the freedom of young people because they have the right to eat what we have seen does not cause any damage. Fast food is not bad provided we do not overeat, as I had been talking before. The advantages of fast food is the price, service, and taste, these are the reasons why the young people like this food. Then if they do not go down into the excess, youngsters are free to eat fast food when wished.

It is unjust banning the fast food to youngsters and not to adults. If fast food is bad, it should be banned to both youth and adults. Young people are humans like adults; both take the same likes and the same healthy problems. It is obvious that there are differences and one has more life experience than the other, but they deserve the same treatment because both are humans.

In conclusion banning the fast food to people under the age of 18 is incorrect because fast food isn´t a big danger if you don´t eat it in excess; it is a form of banning the freedom of young people because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any danger; and it is unjust, for both youngsters and adults since they deserve the same treatment regarding eating fast food.

Review

No to banning the fast food to youngers(youngsters)

Actually one of the most consumed things, especially in young people, is the fast food. The facts(fact) that made(makes) an aliment(food) to a fast food is the quickly form that food is serviced. The problem of this type of food is the health dangers, and then many people look these aliments(food) like the same Dead(death itself). There is the reason by(why) many people don´t like that young people eat fast food. But is continue a bad idea (continues) that banned(banning) the fast food to the youngers(youngsters is not the solution)(,) because fast food isn´t a big danger(,)(.) banning(Banning) the fast food will(would) be banned(banning) the freedom of youngers(youngsters), and (it would be)is unjust banning the fast food only to people under the age of 18.

The danger of fast food is the calories that (it) have(has)(,) that(which) produce(produces) fat in the body(. The) excess of this element causes health damage(,)(.) taken(Taking) for example the famous restaurant McDonald´s(,) there Fries(fries) have 400 calories per 100 grams; (a) BigMac hamburger has 540 calories, while the bacon cheeseburger Angus weighs 790. Calories for other dining options are Chicken McNuggets (which) contains(contain) 190 to 460, Filet-O-Fish at 380, McRib sandwich 500, and McFlurry 630 calories. But this only effect(affects) if the person consume(consumes) more than he needs, the excess is the real problem, then(that) is the reason that(why) fast food isn´t a big danger. Banning the fast food will be banning the freedom of young people(,) because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any damage(,)(.) such as fast (Fast) food(,) (is not bad) provided they(we) do not overeat, as (I) had been talking before. The advantages of fast food is the price, service, and taste, these are the reason(reasons) because(why) the young people likes(like) this aliments(food). Then if they (do) not (go) down into the excess, youngers(youngsters) are freedom(free) to eat fast food when wished.

(It) Is(is) unjust banning the fast food to youngers(youngsters) and (not) to adults not(,)(.) if(If) fast food is bad(,) (it) should not be banned to both youth and adults. Young people are humans like adults; both take the same likes as(and the) same healthy problems. It is obvious that there are differences and one have(has) more life experience than the other, but (they) deserves(deserve) the same treatment(,) because both are humans.

In conclusion banned(banning) the fast food to people under the age of 18 is incorrect(,) because fast food isn´t a big danger(,) if (you) don´t be(eat it) an(in) excess; (it) is a form of banning the freedom of young people(,) because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any danger; and (it) is unjust, for both youngers(youngsters) and adults (since they) deserves(deserve) the same treatment of(regarding eating) eat fast food.

No to banning the fast food to youngers

Actually one of the most consumed things, especially in young people, is the fast food. The facts that made an aliment to a fast food is the quickly form that food is serviced. The problem of this type of food is the health dangers, and then many people look these aliments like the same Dead. There is the reason by many people don´t like that young people eat fast food. But is continue a bad idea that banned the fast food to the youngers, because fast food isn´t a big danger, banning the fast food will be banned the freedom of youngers, and is unjust banning the fast food only to people under the age of 18.

The danger of fast food is the calories that have, that produce fat in the body excess of this element causes health damage, taken for example the famous restaurant McDonald´s there Fries have 400 calories per 100 grams; BigMac hamburger has 540 calories, while the bacon cheeseburger Angus weighs 790. Calories for other dining options are Chicken McNuggets contains 190 to 460, Filet-O-Fish at 380, McRib sandwich 500, and McFlurry 630 calories. But this only effect if the person consume more than he needs, the excess is the real problem, then is the reason that fast food isn´t a big danger.

Banning the fast food will be banning the freedom of young people, because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any damage, such as fast food, provided they do not overeat, as had been talking before. The advantages of fast food is the price, service, and taste, these are the reason because the young people likes this aliments. Then if they not down into the excess, youngers are freedom to eat fast food when wished.

Is unjust banning the fast food to youngers and to adults not, if fast food is bad should not be banned to both youth and adults. Young people are humans like adults; both take the same likes as same healthy problems. It is obvious that there are differences and one have more life experience than the other, but deserves the same treatment, because both are humans.

In conclusion banned the fast food to people under the age of 18 is incorrect, because fast food isn´t a big danger, if don´t be an excess; is a form of banning the freedom of young people, because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any danger; and is unjust, for both youngers and adults deserves the same treatment of eat fast food.