4 ms·

Personally, knowing what I know about him, I wouldn’t want any of his money. That’s just me personally, and I wouldn’t judge others by what I would do, but man

Personally, knowing what I know about him, I wouldn’t want any of his money. That’s just me personally, and I wouldn’t judge others by what I would do, but many people do.

Kranar 5y ago
- sebastien_b 5y ago
  I fail to see the relevance of your own post as well, and frankly, I don’t see why I’d have to explain myself to you or anyone else, just as I don’t expect any from you.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    The point of my post is that there is nothing particularly significant about claiming that you would refuse to take money from someone who is never going to offer it to you to begin with. It's a completely worthless and trivial statement that comes across as posturing.
    - johnny_b_g 5y ago
      As opposed to posting an opinion as a "comment" to try to get that last word?
- samhw 5y ago
  I mean, it's called a hypothetical. They're pretty common. They can even be used as thought experiments to bring out interesting aspects of moral questions.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    If the person bringing up the hypothetical were remotely as talented as the people on this list and then made a claim that they'd refuse a free $100,000 in order to advance their interests, that would be a worthwhile discussion. Then we can expand on their point of view, what tradeoffs they make, what actual resources or funding they made use of as well as the kind of diligence they performed when accepting money... In the absence of those qualifications, some random person saying they'd refuse 100k knowing full they're not in a position to have it offered to them is nothing more than a cheap claim and does nothing but demean the talent and judgement of those who choose to accept it.
    - samhw 5y ago
      I don't see what that has to do with anything. They are equally qualified to discuss the moral aspects of the question, which is what they are discussing. This feels like a lame attempt to shame the other commenter out of a point you couldn't answer - and on the basis of a standard you wouldn't pass yourself either.
      - Kranar 5y ago
        No they are not equally qualified to discuss the moral aspect of it because they have nothing at risk. It's very easy to make cheap moral claims when there is nothing at stake. What's interesting is the kind of moral decisions and tradeoffs an individual makes when there is something at stake. The fact that this person is not in a position to stake anything makes their claim entirely vacuous and superficial. First go off and start a company working on nuclear energy or electric airplanes, get to a point in your life where someone cares to offer you $100k for nothing in return, then feel free to talk about the tradeoffs and difficult balancing act that leads you to refuse it. That can be an interesting discussion... Some nobody just chiming in with nothing other than a claim that they'd refuse to take money that they're in no position to even be offered is cheap posturing.
        samhw 5y ago
        OK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question differently? And why do you think human beings can't think hypothetically about the condition of having something at stake, the same way we can think hypothetically about most everything else?
    - johnny_b_g 5y ago
      - samhw 5y ago
        Yeah, I don't think I've seen such an incoherent attempt to ban someone from having an opinion. It's on a level with saying you can't disapprove of Harold Shipman until you've got a medical degree. Presumably we all have to spend the rest of our lives running around getting various professional qualifications and careers, just so that we can have opinions on utterly generic moral questions which happen to be faced by someone with that degree.

Personally, knowing what I know about him, I wouldn’t want any of his money. That’s just me personally, and I wouldn’t judge others by what I would do, but many people do.

Kranar 5y ago

sebastien_b 5y ago
I fail to see the relevance of your own post as well, and frankly, I don’t see why I’d have to explain myself to you or anyone else, just as I don’t expect any from you.
- Kranar 5y ago
  The point of my post is that there is nothing particularly significant about claiming that you would refuse to take money from someone who is never going to offer it to you to begin with. It's a completely worthless and trivial statement that comes across as posturing.
  - johnny_b_g 5y ago
    As opposed to posting an opinion as a "comment" to try to get that last word?
samhw 5y ago
I mean, it's called a hypothetical. They're pretty common. They can even be used as thought experiments to bring out interesting aspects of moral questions.
- Kranar 5y ago
  If the person bringing up the hypothetical were remotely as talented as the people on this list and then made a claim that they'd refuse a free $100,000 in order to advance their interests, that would be a worthwhile discussion. Then we can expand on their point of view, what tradeoffs they make, what actual resources or funding they made use of as well as the kind of diligence they performed when accepting money... In the absence of those qualifications, some random person saying they'd refuse 100k knowing full they're not in a position to have it offered to them is nothing more than a cheap claim and does nothing but demean the talent and judgement of those who choose to accept it.
  - samhw 5y ago
    I don't see what that has to do with anything. They are equally qualified to discuss the moral aspects of the question, which is what they are discussing. This feels like a lame attempt to shame the other commenter out of a point you couldn't answer - and on the basis of a standard you wouldn't pass yourself either.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      No they are not equally qualified to discuss the moral aspect of it because they have nothing at risk. It's very easy to make cheap moral claims when there is nothing at stake. What's interesting is the kind of moral decisions and tradeoffs an individual makes when there is something at stake. The fact that this person is not in a position to stake anything makes their claim entirely vacuous and superficial. First go off and start a company working on nuclear energy or electric airplanes, get to a point in your life where someone cares to offer you $100k for nothing in return, then feel free to talk about the tradeoffs and difficult balancing act that leads you to refuse it. That can be an interesting discussion... Some nobody just chiming in with nothing other than a claim that they'd refuse to take money that they're in no position to even be offered is cheap posturing.
      - samhw 5y ago
        OK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question differently? And why do you think human beings can't think hypothetically about the condition of having something at stake, the same way we can think hypothetically about most everything else?
  - johnny_b_g 5y ago
    - samhw 5y ago
      Yeah, I don't think I've seen such an incoherent attempt to ban someone from having an opinion. It's on a level with saying you can't disapprove of Harold Shipman until you've got a medical degree. Presumably we all have to spend the rest of our lives running around getting various professional qualifications and careers, just so that we can have opinions on utterly generic moral questions which happen to be faced by someone with that degree.