Argument on how people are judged

It is quite impossible for one to side perfectly at the end of one range, if one was to give opinions on a topic discussing whether a person’s worth is mostly judged according to social status and material possessions rather than old-fashioned values. In summary, the question is not a matter of black and white, the query above is a grey area. The statement above is agreeable, if the context is a person living in the urban area. It is to be endorsed that a person living in the cities are appraised mostly by their earthly possessions but a person who is living in a Suburgatory will obviously be judged mostly by their ownership of old values such as honor, kindness, and trust. So, to generate an answer on this inquiry, different conditions need to be assessed specifically the geographical factor. Having been witnessing the way people do their activities in both parts of the world helped one segregate the gap between the two communities. For example, people in the cities are majorly materialistic and individualistic, some can even disregard the names of their neighbors, even some can create a whole new group based on one’s wealth. The underlying reason for this is because urbans coteries are closely bounded to their work life. Provided the facts above, the way the people live in the Suburgatory area is very communal, it is significantly different compared to how they do stuffs in the cities. The incumbents tend to recognize each other very well, setup and gather at a townhall, last but not least, to cook and dine together. These communal activities have been driving how the community judge others which is by appraising someone based on the humanitarian principles.