How do you understand the sentence "A gentleman can keep his integrity when he is poor, but a villain will do whatever he wants when he is poor"? Tell me what you think.

One hundred people, one hundred natures

Gentlemen and villains are two extremes, most of them are ordinary people

Gentlemen are noble and wise, almost all have advantages, and villains are despicable and ignorant, which is almost worthless. Mention

A gentleman is thirsty and thirsty, he does not drink hot spring water, he does not live in evil trees, he does not eat, and he complains about eating people. He is poor and his ambition is endless

The villain is just the opposite. >

A more realistic example: A woman’s husband was a contractor during his lifetime. After his death, the woman was left helpless and unable to make a living. She still found ways to pay off all the IOUs regardless of whether the workers had them. She can be called a gentleman! If the contractor defaults on wages due to poor operation or losses, shirks in every possible way, or even does not want to pay at all, he is a villain. It cannot become a great thing.

People should be poor and have some spirit, but they can also be a gentleman. Being rich can also be unkind. It is not easy to keep a pure land in the heart in a money-based society. That is to say, a gentleman will not violate the law even when he is very poor. It is a matter of conscience, and villains will do things that are against morality