2 ms·
> I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives That's the "I'm not saying he's a rapist, I'm just asking the question" defense, and it's bull
by ethbro 9y ago
> I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives
That's the "I'm not saying he's a rapist, I'm just asking the question" defense, and it's bullshit. Every single one of your posts in this thread is along the lines of "If Gates and Buffett were profiteering assholes, they would do {thing they do} for {evil reason you ascribe to it}."
So by duck typing, you're absolutely saying they're profiteering assholes.
And then you throw out strawmen like this to support your point:
> I will say that if Gates and Buffet truly believed that 40% of the wealth they accrue each year could be put to better use by the USG than themselves, they could put their money where their mouth is and donate that portion of their assets to the U.S. Treasury. [0] Instead, they seem to keep that wealth within vehicles that they can control.
- cookiecaper 9y agoI understand your point and I don't really disagree that passive accusations are irritating. It seems like the speaker is trying to weasel out of responsibility for what he's saying. All I can say is that it's not my intention to do that in this case. IMO people are too quick to accept something at face value if it's politically or rhetorically convenient to do so, and I wanted to get more people thinking about the potential subtexts of statements made by the world's most conspicuously wealthy men, especially when these statements are oriented toward political matters.