Right now, in some small town in America, perhaps in Kansas or Iowa, a young father of a beautiful daughter just shot himself in his garage, leaving behind a broken family and unanswered questions.
Where are your tears?
Where are your sympathy blog posts?
Why isn’t your heart open to his tragedy?
WHY WON’T YOU CARE?
Yesterday, a filthy street bum died in the cold night air in a puddle of his own steaming piss and shit.
Why hasn’t he made you feel anything?
Why won’t you immortalize him in eulogy?
“i have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
– john locke
You say: “But I didn’t know the man in Kansas or the street bum! Why would I feel anything for someone I don’t know?”
P r e c i s e l y.
You didn’t know Heath Ledger, either. All you knew was his manufactured screen presence. And you cultivated a false relationship based on that. Fact: You were completely invisible to him. HEATH LEDGER DID NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU. Yet you cared. You poured out your heart for him in a way he would not have done for you if the circumstances were reversed. You felt this way because he played roles that “spoke to you” or “touched you”. There was a sensitivity in his eyes that made you feel a “connection”. You experienced good feelings when you watched his movies. Maybe your loins tingled.
That is why you care. Because Ledger brought VALUE in the form of emotional pleasure to your life. He was BETTER than the average human because he was more VALUABLE, and therefore inspired you to feel sadness for his death. We care for those who are worth something. Which leads us inevitably to:
Maxim #3: Some human beings are worth more than others, despite their equality under the law.
Let me tell you how our concentric circles of morality are arranged.
In the small inner circle, we feel the most moral regard for lovers and immediate family.
Followed by close friends.
Then extended family.
Then acquaintances.
And in the distant outer circle, our countrymen.
Substitute “race”, “ethnic religion” or “ideological allies” for “countrymen” if you are feeling especially cynical.
Beyond that outer ring of sympathy I wouldn’t shed a tear for anyone’s misfortune. A hundred thousand tsunami victims floating on the seas like bloated balloons of waterlogged flesh will not perturb me from syncing my ipod. And neither will they perturb you. Or to put it another way, try the following thought experiment:
If you had the power in your hands, would you kill in such a manner as to ensure maximum pain and suffering
a. 10,000 Indonesians if it would save your lover’s life?
b. your lover if it would save 10,000 Indonesians’ lives?
In a worldwide conflagration where the existence of civilization is threatened watch how quickly the conventional morality falls apart. And how much quicker the moral shakeout is justified.
Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing
This is morality defined. Examine your actions over the course of your life and you will see I am right.
No shit. Here’s the thing though, the death of a person outside of the immediate circle can often trigger memories or thoughts about the death of a person in the inner circle. Perhaps the feeling is fleeting or shallow, but it’s there.
Furthermore, I find that there is something about the need for public grief that is in our genes and psychology. Look how quickly people turn to it, and not just because of celeb rags. There are entire religious and national holidays and prayers for lamentation. Heath Ledger’s death, on some level allows many young Americans an expression of just that. Whether you like it or not.
What’s a shame is that our national outpouring should be over our soldiers, not celebrities. Why do I feel so far removed from that?
I don’t want to argue about this with you, just explain another perspective. There’s a nerve being hit from both sides.
LikeLike
Love this post. 10,000 is probably an underestimation. Most people would go even higher. Genocidal activities have occurred all over the world, much of Africa is war torn and consumed by ethnic violence. The rest of the world doesn’t care, because there’s no resources worth fighting for in Africa and De Beers makes sure we get our blood diamonds.
I’m sure there will be an outpouring of “human beings are good blah blah blah”… but let’s face it, we’re all out for ourselves. Whether it’s staying silent as the Nazis take away the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals, to blissfully ignoring violence in Africa that has 12 year olds wielding machetes, pumping and dumping a girl, or cuckolding a man– the evidence is there, it’s everyone for themselves.
The good news is, it’s always been this way, so it’s not the end of the world or anything.
LikeLike
I don’t know about my loins but my booty hole tingled
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the unpopular stance. People wonder why they don’t know about what’s going on in the world…Perhaps it’s because CNN.com’s main story for 2 days was Heath Ledger’s passing. Sure it’s a sad story, no one deserves to die that young, but besides being a wealthy movie star he did no less or more than the guy who died in the hospital in X town ten minutes ago.
Too bad society dictates that being famous is more important than anything else. I’ve always wondered what would happen if someone who’s done much good in the world, a big charity guy, or a famous doctor died on the same day as a superstar actor, actress, or athlete. Who’s death would we cover in greater detail? I’m willing to bet it will be the superstar.
LikeLike
true, good post.
LikeLike
how i enjoy hearing you get good and fired up. such power words have…
LikeLike
Different minds have different moralities based on all kinds of factors. Russians have a different morality than Koreans. Hindus have a different morality than Christians. You can argue forever and you can’t make any conclusions about morality whatever. Generally anyone who thinks themselves moral is not thinking for themselves in the first place. They picked up their morality from their family, religion, etc….. Believing oneself moral makes one an automatic hypocrite.
At one time I gave up eating meat because I saw a show on PBS about factory farms and the heinous ways animals are treated. Someone I shared an office with tried to argue with me about it, saying “But look!! You’re wearing leather shoes. You are a hypocrite!!” And I agreed with him whole heartedly! I said, “Yes, that’s right!! I’m a vegetarian hypocrite!” End of argument…which did NOT make him happy, poor thing.
Who cares what anyone else thinks of your particular choices in life? It made me feel good to not eat meat AND wear leather shoes. Let’s face it, they’re better for your feet. 😀 I love not arguing with people who want so much to be right. Petty, petty arguments.
#1: Don’t even try to be moral. Just follow your own guidance.
#2: Be as happy as you can be. And if you’re worried one whit about what anyone thinks about you, that is an impossibility.
LikeLike
The mainstream media does not even cover stories which would be pertinent to people’s daily lives. If a person is concerned about the way that global politics, finances, economics and policies might affect his or her private life, that person would have to dig around to find information.
Rarely is there coverage of the downturn of the USD vs. the Yuan, government wiretapping of citizens, or the rising cost of living. When the coverage is there, it’s not promoted nearly as heavily as celebrity or gossip-type news. The recent federal rate cut affected everyone’s savings so that anyone with money in the bank really now has less valuable money, but CNN covered Heath Ledger all day.
Not much to do with morality, but more to do with ignorance.
LikeLike
Can you really not appreciate that some folks are actually capable of mourning the loss of someone they never knew?
I know that if I had heard the story of the man who shotgunned it in his garage, or the story of the bum on the street, I’d feel the stirrings of empathy. Any death to me is a sad one, because I know that there are folks who have been left behind, and I can empathize with the grief of the
survivor(s).
I won’t miss Heath Ledger. I don’t mourn his loss. But I do feel badly for his kid, his friends, his family. Weak, to you = Human, to me.
LikeLike
Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing +scientology
LikeLike
Heath was taking a deadly cocktail of prescription drugs.
“A medical report in 1998 estimated that adverse reactions to prescription drugs are killing about 106,000 Americans each year — roughly three times as many as are killed by automobiles.[1] This makes prescription drugs the fourth leading killer in the U.S., after heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The report included only drugs that were given properly and under normal circumstances, excluding drugs that were administered in error or taken in attempted suicides. (When errors of administration are included, the death toll may be as high as 140,000 per year.[2] Such errors include prescribing the wrong drug or the wrong dosage; giving medications to the wrong person; giving medications to the right person but in the wrong quantities or the wrong frequencies, and so forth.)”
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/drugs_that_kill.shtml
LikeLike
Your best post yet. Outstanding.
LikeLike
“In fact, every time the newspaper reports a baby dying from incompetent parenthood, will you cry for them too, every single time?”
Wait. Do you have to cry, in order to express empathy? I must be heartless, cause I just feel slightly sad when I read about babies dying from imcompetent parenting.
LikeLike
“SO refreshing to see this. Even the most apparently enlightened sociological bloggers never talk about the role that status and social appearances play in our decisions.”
Republican bloggers bring this type of stuff up all the time when mocking liberals.
LikeLike
12 John Smith
“Pop Culture’s grip on people is always fascinating and depressing. Humans are not biologically designed to give a shit about large groups of people. That’s ultimately what the problem is.”
Why do you think it’s a problem? Who has time or emotional resources to individually mourn the so-called “loss” of every human, plant, or animal on the planet. Are we inhuman if we don’t do that? What would it help if we did? The bottom line is that we cannot suffer enough to reduce another’s suffering. Let me say that a different way. I cannot be sick enough to make another person well, or broke enough to make another person rich, or insane enough to make another person sane, or unhappy enough to make another person happy.
The so-called saints who have tried have not even made a dent in the overall suffering of the world!! Why? Because too much focus on the problem never solves the problem. Only focus on the solution solves the problem. People are so mesmerized by problems they never get around to looking for actual solutions. Hence the bleeding hearts accomplish one thing: more bleeding.
LikeLike
now… i read your post. i remembere a conversation with a friend long back. he was interested in karma and all that stuff. i told him that human beings, for most part, in capable of understand the stuff undernearth.
Just because…
1. It is ruthless.
Alas, there is only one. I find ppl as machines running the same(similar) algorithms producing machines running the same(similar) algorithms.
So what’s new? A guy like you is certainly going to write a post like this.. just because you wonder why? 😛
on a side note, this rina sounds like wasting her time. it is pretty clear that we, guys, dont give a shit about a girl’s intellect. And she is trying to sound smart. Baby, try to sound sexy. That may help you.
hehehe…
LikeLike
^ rina has a heart and shows it. Is that not sexy?
LikeLike
A hundred thousand tsunami victims floating on the seas like bloated balloons of waterlogged flesh will not perturb me from syncing my ipod. And neither will they perturb you.
People donated more than $7 billion in aid to help the victims of the 2004 tsunami that hit Indonesia, amongst many other places. Sure, a portion of that was no doubt given because of “self-serving status posturing,” as you put it, but that couldn’t have been the only motive. People are capable of feeling empathy for people they’ve never met. If you deny that categorically, I’m not really sure what to tell you.
The entire history of society is the struggle between serving the self and serving the whole. Successful societies are those that have achieved a balance between the two. Go too far in one direction and you’ve got oppressive communism; go too far in the other and you’ve got anarchy. We may all be out for ourselves biologically, but society can only function when we oppose that instinct. And it’s empathy — another evolved trait — that allows us to do that.
LikeLike
“Fact: You were completely invisible to him. HEATH LEDGER DID NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU. Yet you cared. You poured out your heart for him in a way he would not have done for you if the circumstances were reversed.”
The truth is that no one really needs to be reminded of this. People are not so stupid to think that he WOULD mourn their death. It only goes to show how ‘selfless’ people can be! Emotions in general are not logical phenomena. Trying to appeal to people using this type of reasoning is useless.
LikeLike
The thing with these outpourings of emotion onto some far-off object you’ve never met, Diana-style, is that they are essentially fake. And that the owners bleatingly demand that we still respect them, of course.
On the other hand, the other side of the same coin can be great. Just ask any rockstar or star athlete.
LikeLike
it’s beneath me and would make me look bad
LikeLike
haha! ok seriously it’s time to laugh
go to:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t
type in:
Heath Ledger is dead.
translate english -> spanish
now this is what smart people do with their lives.
LikeLike
31 Peter: Yeah, I can relate to that. Honestly I gave not 5 minutes of thought or 2 minutes of emotion to that whole thing. If a death (or deaths) affects us, it’s something we personally identify with in one way or another.
LikeLike
Right now, in some small town in America, perhaps in Kansas or Iowa, a young father of a beautiful daughter just shot himself in his garage, leaving behind a broken family and unanswered questions.
Ironic. Today, after I read your posting, I found out from an online friend that someone I knew has been killed. I met her in an online game I played last year, and the killer is her husband whom I also met and talked to in the same game.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7198974.stm
According to her, they got a divorce 2 weeks ago, and they had three kids. Allegedly she was going for someone else. Regardless, she is very broken up over this and has shed tears for someone whom she’s only known online.
In this modern era of technology, our lives can be touched by those whom we’ve never seen, heard, or met — which exemplifies the 21st century human condition, that of a psychological pseudo global village.
LikeLike
I really botched the pronouns in that last post.
some folks are actually capable of mourning the loss of someone they never knew
Some folks, myself included, actually cry over the loss of fictional characters. My reaction, at least, is not against the mourning, but the mass media’s exploitation of human emotion, selling it as “news” for rating and ad revenue purposes, cheapening it in the process while ignoring so many more pressing issues that affect the living.
LikeLike
Ugh, kill the damned beta lover. 10,000 Indonesians over him, any time!
😛
LikeLike
Actually, thinking about what you said. My moral values are quite elevated (I try not to look out for number one, consciously speaking). However, I have trouble with having actual affection for most people. What’s frightening about this is that I would treat most of the ‘concentric circles’ in the same way within most moral situations.
To clarify, metaphorically, I would take a bullet for anyone although I may be slightly faster with someone I know. Slightly. If they didn’t annoy me that day.
LikeLike
Why do you think it’s a problem? Who has time or emotional resources to individually mourn the so-called “loss” of every human, plant, or animal on the planet. Are we inhuman if we don’t do that? What would it help if we did? The bottom line is that we cannot suffer enough to reduce another’s suffering. Let me say that a different way. I cannot be sick enough to make another person well, or broke enough to make another person rich, or insane enough to make another person sane, or unhappy enough to make another person happy.
No it’s actually more simple. There is currently a genocide going on in Darfur. The majority of Americans, and probably 85% of the world’s population, don’t know what is going on in Darfur. Probably you don’t know or care.
If a greater fraction of the population actually gave a shit about large groups of people instead of occasional drug user Heath Ledger (No offense to him, but seriously-he snorted cocaine. His death isn’t exactly something to question one’s belief in God) then maybe our government or the world community would be able to spare a few thousand troops to go there and guard the people.
We could have done it in Rwanda, but didn’t because PEOPLE DIDN’T CARE, people like you. And so we have the blood of 800,000 innocent women, children, and men because we thought reality TV was more important than the world.
Don’t you just LOVE human nature? I ask myself that every time I see a girl lusting after a man who doesn’t respect her.
LikeLike
Most “action” about Darfur involves spreading “awareness”, which means bleating on teh innerwebs about how no one knows about Darfur and how terrible it is and how terrible everyone is for not doing anything about it.
I like how people slam other people about being obsessed with pop culture and not being concerned about Darfur, when the only reason people know about Darfur is because pop culture icons made it a cause. The cause du jour. If I started screaming about the plight of ethnic minorities in hazarajat, urumqi, or whatever obscure location, you’d look at me like I was crazy, but Darfur’s ok cuz George Clooney says so. How many people knew what a janjaweed was before a few years ago? How many people do now? How many people think it’s another word for cannabis? If I get guilt tripped about Darfur can I guilt trip you back about anywhere else? How much care must I express and for which injustice before I’m exempt from harrassment and guilt-trippage? Is there some scale I can use?
Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
40: I repeat Mr. Smith!
“Because too much focus on the problem never solves the problem. Only focus on the solution solves the problem. People are so mesmerized by problems they never get around to looking for actual solutions. Hence the bleeding hearts accomplish one thing: more bleeding.”
That doesn’t sound like I don’t care. On the contrary. And I do know what is happening in Darfur and my viewpoint is the same. What sounds cold hearted to you is not. Just because my heart doesn’t bleed does not mean I don’t care and if there were money to be made in Darfur our government would be the first ones there. THAT is why they are not.
LikeLike
Those who feel affection for Heath Ledger, do not click on this as it is upsetting:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1302153,00.html
I’m sorry but.. LOL! That’s just ridiculous. Would some of you like to join them?
LikeLike
44 CM
Heath is sure getting a lot of attention. That is fucking hilarious.
LikeLike
so would you kill your lover or the 10,000 indonesians?
LikeLike
Questions like that are so stupid and unrealistic. Kinda reminds me of something tho.
Does anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode from the 80s (from the new twilight zone show they had) where there was a dude that would come to your house and say, “If you push this button, someone you don’t know will die and you will get 1 million dollars.” That kinda reminds me of that episode.
At the end, the fat bitchy chick pushes the button and the man knocks on the door with a brief case of cash. He says something like, “Thank you, and I assure you that the next person to push the button will not know you either.”
dee-DEE-dee-dee dee-DEE-dee-dee
LikeLike
44 CM This is even worse.
LikeLike
My inside sources tell me there is no such thing as hell. Hell is just a metaphorical state that describes various types of suffering. It was never meant to be taken as an actual place. Phelps and his minions have never asked themselves HOW the Bible came to be in the hands of man. The only way for the Bible to have gotten into the hands of man is if a man had written it and how did the men who wrote it know what to write? And after many translations and 2000 years….. The contradictions alone make it not worth the paper it’s written on. The Phelps idiots and those like him are just pissed off because all their belief has done nothing but make them miserable. And they see others who don’t believe as they do often much happier! So naturally they get more and more pissed off and HAVE to believe in a heaven that only they will go to in order to make themselves feel better. Heath is in heaven. It’s where we all go. Yes, even Adolph Hitler.
LikeLike
I can’t believe no one has brought up the Western theories of morality based on Lawrence Kohlberg’s work (i.e., the Kantian notion that the sanctity of life supersedes all other concepts) and the feminist counterarguments based on Carol Gilligan’s work (i.e., Kohlberg’s theories are biased because women’s moral orientations are centered around the notion of care)!
LikeLike
alias clio said:
“In the real world, people quite often make choices that injure their chances for personal advancement, either out of false optimism (they think they’ll work it out somehow), or habit (they keep doing things that they know are bad for them), or even idealism.”
By ‘people’ do you mean old women, teenagers, and the religious? I still think in even these groups you see (ingroup) self-serving status posturing as the main thrust in their decision-making.
“Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing”
I would probably give more weight to S (status posturing) like this:
M=(g+E+q) x S
…where M is defined as the strength of a moral decision. I guess you could create a scale of relatedness for g, a scale of convenience for E, a scale of likely material return for q, and a scale for the explicit ingroup approbation of the moral position, decision, or action for S.
Let this serve as an innocuous example: An middle-aged, poor black man recently asked me for a dollar outside a grocery store. I was sitting in my car waiting for a friend, and he approached with the opening, “I’m not trying to start any trouble or anything, but can I get a dollar for the bus…” I don’t usually carry cash, and that’s what I told him and he left… even though I knew I had a few bucks in my wallet. I’ve been begged for more cash before after having pulled out my wallet so that wasn’t going to happen again.
So the g was 0. The E was actually high. The q was 0. And the S was 0 (no one was watching to approve). HOWEVER, if my (very liberal) friend had been in the car, the S would have increased and multiplied by the E would have led me to give him the buck.
LikeLike
The real tragedy of Ledger’s death will be that when they find whatever legal, prescription drug he was on, some idiot lawmaker will make it impossible to get — depriving honest citizens of much-needed meds.
This already happened when fat idiot Rush Limbaugh got himself addicted to pain pills and doctors started “cracking down” on everyone who had a simple bad back.
Celebrity dug use has a trickle down effect in that we all must suffer for their sins.
It looks like one of the gross, skanky Olsen twins was involved in this somehow — but I’m sure her drug-infested ass will run free, while we have to sign papers to get fucking Robitussin.
Fuck celebrities. Rot in peace, Heath Ledger.
LikeLike
54
I’m willing to bet you are not as tough as you sound.
LikeLike
God’s particles, giving a dollar, or not giving a dollar, to a street person is hardly what I would call a major moral decision. I’m talking about things like deciding to take a low-paid job that serves some notion of the public good over a higher one that does not; helping the poor in ways that don’t attract attention to oneself (even donating money secretly and not asking for a tax deduction); dentists who donate their time to clinics for the poor for free, and so forth. All these things demand more in time and commitment than they return in status or social approval.
That doesn’t mean that I disagree with your point that there is a form of self-interest or self-regard in the people who do these things. There nearly always is. Our animal nataures make it difficult for us to avoid this. And I would add, as a believing Catholic, that Original Sin makes all our efforts at goodness liable to corruption of one kind or another, like a car with faulty steering that is nearly impossible to drive straight, even when the driver is very attentive.
LikeLike
Sorry, gp, I did indeed miss the word “innocuous” in your previous example.
My main reason for engaging in this argument isn’t so much to say that I disagree with the idea that status-seeking of some kind is a part of all human behaviour, all the time. It probably is, although I suspect that in some cases, more than you may realise, it’s status with our own conscience that may drive us.
But – given the truth of your assumption – I still think it’s a Good Thing that something in us has been socialized sufficiently to respond that way to social pressure. People who have not been successfully socialized to care what others think (even for purely selfish reasons) are called sociopaths and psychopaths…
And you might do well to ask yourself – where does the status element of Doing the Right Thing come from? I mean, if it’s created entirely by selfish persons, surely they could find some other way to show off to each other at less cost to themselves? Some forms of altruism really are costly, after all.
LikeLike
Adam Smith said in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”:
Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own.
LikeLike
dba – true. we all pay for the excesses of the stupid, the feckless, and the famous. the whole of government policy could be described as a system of protecting the dumb from themselves at the expense of everyone’s freedom.
godparticles – interesting analysis. let’s take another example and see if we can quantify morality:
given: M = (g + E + q) x S
where M = degree of moral umbrage and the likelihood of taking action to rectify the preceived injustice.
g = genetic affinity
E = expediency (i define this as fluid morality. you’re more likely to adopt a moral position when it works to your benefit or is relatively painless to act upon.)
q = tit for tat
S = status whoring
the scale for each variable is 1-10, where 1 = no impact on your decision and 10 = influence of the utmost importance.
let’s say you’re at a party with friends and your brother (who is in attendance) blurts out a racist joke. a hush descends on the crowd. your action in response is vitiated by the following factors:
g = 10 (he’s your brother!)
E = 2 (it’s tough to call out a racist joke at a party and risk dragging out the discomfort. it’s even tougher when it’s your brother’s public humiliation on the line.)
q = 1 (you’re contemplating a moral action that will prevent your loss, rather than win you gains.)
S = 6 (you risk losing the approval of your friends if you seem as if you are acceding to your brother’s faux pas. acting will not raise your status, but it will prevent you losing status.)
calculating M we get:
M = (10+2+1) x 6 = 78
if M resides on a scale from 1 to 300, where a score of 300 means a moral action that is easy to take, quite personally beneficial, and encourages the sort of self-righteous preening that feels almost as good as sex, then in the scenario i outlined above you would probably hesitate quite a bit before deciding to evade your moral discomfort by changing the subject and yelling out “WHO’S UP FOR SHOTS!!!”
an M of 1 means “kill em all and let bog sort them out”.
LikeLike
Morality is not a feeling, it’s a set of principles. Our feelings tell us about our nature, but not necessarily what our morality should be.
Nor is mourning necessarily a moral act. Somebody can cry a lot and be immoral, another person can be calm and cold but be moral as a considered choice.
Finally, a rational morality helps us focus on things we can do. Crying about distant deaths on the TV is just another form of entertainment, really.
LikeLike
genocide is a feature, not a bug.
LikeLike
but then i never claimed to be a good guy.
i bet you’re actually a saint, because you recognize that you’re not a good guy
LikeLike
glass this greed right water man stone greed stone
LikeLike