4 ms·

> Which is a direct response to your original point which was an absurd hypothetical about how Tim Cook should be allowed to make as much money as he wants Dud

by gretch 4y ago

> Which is a direct response to your original point which was an absurd hypothetical about how Tim Cook should be allowed to make as much money as he wants Dude you’re so deep in your own mind hole. Read the post again to see that no such point was ever raised. OP “I can’t see why anyone would do this” and I tried to help add a perspective so that they might be able to get a little bit more from the world, as if lending a magnifying glass. It was a question and answer about human motivation, not govt policy. At no point do I assert that someone -should- do something or that some position is morally justified over others. You might consider that you get into ~200% more arguments than you actually should and your combativeness turns would-be allies into enemies.

xracy 4y ago
You don't say that he 'should' do anything. But you're providing a purely hypothetical example of what someone might do with their money if they were allowed to continue making money beyond the amount of money that they would need to buy a nice house and feed themselves well. You're providing a justification for why someone would need more money. Why would you do that, if you don't believe that they should be able to do that? This is such an obnoxious level of not sticking to a reasonable interpretation of what you said. I know you didn't say the word 'should', but if you don't see that you providing a defense (in the form of a case for why they should need more money than what the original commenter stated) of billionaires reads as you cosigning why they should be allowed to make billions, then maybe, legitimately, you should take an English literature class? Like, this reads as pretty Gas-Lighting behavior to me. I'm not responding to things you didn't write.
- gretch 4y ago
  "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

by gretch 4y ago

xracy 4y ago

You don't say that he 'should' do anything. But you're providing a purely hypothetical example of what someone might do with their money if they were allowed to continue making money beyond the amount of money that they would need to buy a nice house and feed themselves well. You're providing a justification for why someone would need more money. Why would you do that, if you don't believe that they should be able to do that? This is such an obnoxious level of not sticking to a reasonable interpretation of what you said. I know you didn't say the word 'should', but if you don't see that you providing a defense (in the form of a case for why they should need more money than what the original commenter stated) of billionaires reads as you cosigning why they should be allowed to make billions, then maybe, legitimately, you should take an English literature class? Like, this reads as pretty Gas-Lighting behavior to me. I'm not responding to things you didn't write.

gretch 4y ago
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."