3 ms·
The analogy is poor. The argument being discussed is whether Bill did something bad and uses the results to fuel the good he does in order to atone for his bad.
by PakG1 11y ago
The analogy is poor. The argument being discussed is whether Bill did something bad and uses the results to fuel the good he does in order to atone for his bad. In your analogy, the pimp does something good and uses it to fuel the bad he does.
For the record, Bill's business practices sucked, but there's no denying that he had better vision for tech than the monster of his day, IBM. Each age has its villain, each of which has been far from what the world considers to be truly evil.
- Retric 11y agoI think you missed the connection. Gates did not want to be the richest person in the world any more. Giving that money to charity was a socially acceptable way of doing so. Thus, it may have been a selfish action with a net positive outcome. The pimps homeless shelter might also be a net positive impact. It seems far more selfish. Alternatively it may have started Gates down a different path which changed his mindset. I can't know as this is all internal. The point is some people feel the internal reasoning is just as important as the outcome. PS: This is one of the reasons the law cares about internal reasoning not just outcomes.