How? All you’re really doing here is stereotyping rich people.
For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn’t mean all Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.
What do you mean how? The concept of a billionaire existing being bad has a massive relevance as to whether one individual a billionaire is bad. If the mere fact of being a billionaire is bad, which it obviously is, then it doesn’t matter who this individual billionaire is he’s already tainted by being a billionaire. That’s just one plus one equals two. It’s inescapable logic. Of course it’s relevant.
If the mere fact of being a billionaire is bad, which it obviously is,
I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Becoming a billionaire just means you have a billion dollars worth of assets, and it doesn’t say anything about how you got that money.
There’s a high correlation between billionaire’s and being a bad person, but it’s not 1:1.
I’m not going to get sidetracked into that conversation. Especially when there is absolutely zero chance of us agreeing on it. The topic was whether or not that determination is relevant. Which again obviously it has to be.
GabeN is hardly rich enough to end poverty or even just hunger, and that’s not the only important cause people could work on. I’d be happy if every billionaire picked some cause and donated to it, no need for society’s input.
Which is what I am doing: evaluating him on what he does and does not do. Not what “he may or may not be planning to do at some undisclosed time in the future.”
How? All you’re really doing here is stereotyping rich people.
For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn’t mean all Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.
What do you mean how? The concept of a billionaire existing being bad has a massive relevance as to whether one individual a billionaire is bad. If the mere fact of being a billionaire is bad, which it obviously is, then it doesn’t matter who this individual billionaire is he’s already tainted by being a billionaire. That’s just one plus one equals two. It’s inescapable logic. Of course it’s relevant.
I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Becoming a billionaire just means you have a billion dollars worth of assets, and it doesn’t say anything about how you got that money.
There’s a high correlation between billionaire’s and being a bad person, but it’s not 1:1.
I’m not going to get sidetracked into that conversation. Especially when there is absolutely zero chance of us agreeing on it. The topic was whether or not that determination is relevant. Which again obviously it has to be.
And I argue it’s not a given that someone is a bad person just because they have billions of dollars.
Cool beans dude, not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not that determination is relevant.
The fact of having a dragon’s hoard of money while people starve is what I am looking at.
Oh, look at that, Gabe has a dragon’s hoard of money and people are starving.
GabeN is hardly rich enough to end poverty or even just hunger, and that’s not the only important cause people could work on. I’d be happy if every billionaire picked some cause and donated to it, no need for society’s input.
Never claimed he could end poverty. But he could donate half his money, still be obscenely wealthy, and end hunger for a lot of people.
Maybe he’s planning to, or maybe he has, idk. We can only really evaluate him on what he does.
Which is what I am doing: evaluating him on what he does and does not do. Not what “he may or may not be planning to do at some undisclosed time in the future.”