Kind of weird to see you arguing that you don’t believe in the morale value of charity.
Kind of weird that you’re acting like stealing hundreds of billions through monopolization and exploitation and then giving some portion of it back is praiseworthy. Charity has moral value when you earned the money you have, not when you’re giving part of your ill-gotten gains back; that’s a partial offset, not a bonus.
Again, you could look at someone like Jimmy Buffett who just, you know, made his fortune being a pretty cool guy whose art people loved enough to pay for it, but you’re still ride-or-die for your favorite child rapist-hobnobbing, cheating, ruthlessly corporatistic and monopolistic Trump-ass-kissing thief of hundreds of billions of dollars under the justification that he gave some of it to charity.
World’s best centibillionaire? Quite possibly almost by default. Best billionaire? Impressively stupid take.
Nobody who bought windows copies or azure services benefited from Gates Foundation Charity. He didn’t “exploit for it and give a portion back” he extorted the wealthiest population on earth and gave to the poorest.
BTW are you having fun trying to, how did you put it, dog on somebody for trying to help people?
Seems like you completely abandoned your argument about Weegee?
Oh, and now you’re trying to warp Gates’ building of a multitrillion-dollar monopolistic megacorp and donating part of his personal profits to charity into something akin to Robin Hood. Yeah, dude, the ruthless capitalist centibillionaire personally deciding who lives and who dies is practically a folk hero. And hey, he’s even out there donating money for syphilis research, which could help underprivileged associates of pedophile financiers who cheat on their wives.
I mean, yeah, if you don’t do that then you’re just Elon Musk or Vladimir Putin which we pretty much all agree is a horrible person.
Kind of weird to see you arguing that you don’t believe in the morale value of charity.
Kind of weird that you’re acting like stealing hundreds of billions through monopolization and exploitation and then giving some portion of it back is praiseworthy. Charity has moral value when you earned the money you have, not when you’re giving part of your ill-gotten gains back; that’s a partial offset, not a bonus.
Again, you could look at someone like Jimmy Buffett who just, you know, made his fortune being a pretty cool guy whose art people loved enough to pay for it, but you’re still ride-or-die for your favorite child rapist-hobnobbing, cheating, ruthlessly corporatistic and monopolistic Trump-ass-kissing thief of hundreds of billions of dollars under the justification that he gave some of it to charity.
World’s best centibillionaire? Quite possibly almost by default. Best billionaire? Impressively stupid take.
Nobody who bought windows copies or azure services benefited from Gates Foundation Charity. He didn’t “exploit for it and give a portion back” he extorted the wealthiest population on earth and gave to the poorest.
BTW are you having fun trying to, how did you put it, dog on somebody for trying to help people?
Seems like you completely abandoned your argument about Weegee?
Oh, and now you’re trying to warp Gates’ building of a multitrillion-dollar monopolistic megacorp and donating part of his personal profits to charity into something akin to Robin Hood. Yeah, dude, the ruthless capitalist centibillionaire personally deciding who lives and who dies is practically a folk hero. And hey, he’s even out there donating money for syphilis research, which could help underprivileged associates of pedophile financiers who cheat on their wives.
You really have completely abandoned the Luigi discussion.
Removed by mod