3 ms·

> I dont think it was greed. I think he legitimately thought he was doing the right thing, thought it was fun, and thought it was interesting. It was absolutel

> I dont think it was greed. I think he legitimately thought he was doing the right thing, thought it was fun, and thought it was interesting. It was absolutely greed by the original sense of the word, which isn't necessary only about money, he knew he was breaking the laws given the step he took to cover his tracks, badly, but he was very well aware of the fraud he was partaking in, it was proven during his trial. There is the crime and then there is the cover up, or attempt at doing so. And ever after Sam was arrested he tried to intimidate and discredit, publicly, his co-defendant. He was fully aware of the crimes he committed, he just thought he could miraculously get out of his situation on top, like a trader who just lost and still going to bet everything: that's greed.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I didn't say he was oblivious to the crime. I think he thought we was doing good by his moral compass
- throw_m239339 2y ago
  > I didn't say he was oblivious to the crime. I think he thought we was doing good by his moral compass I didn't say you claimed he was oblivious to his crime either. What you claim being 'his moral compass' didn't stand basic scrutiny during his trial. It was demonstrated he fully knew he was committing fraud, he just didn't care because he was greedy.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Fraud is a crime. That doesn't mean he thought it was bad. Did he feel bad about that fraud? Do you think he thought it was bad? That it was unjustified? People break laws all the time but don't think they did anything morally wrong. Hell, I can think of plenty of laws I think are bad or not applicable
    - throw_m239339 2y ago
      > People break laws all the time but don't think they did anything morally wrong. His trial proved he knew he was breaking the law for personal profit. His behavior absolutely fits the definition of greed. your original argument is > I dont think it was greed. I think he legitimately thought he was doing the right thing, thought it was fun, and thought it was interesting. Again it's all in the trial and the mountains of evidences against him. Personal enrichment was the motive for the fraud, plain and simple. He even admitted the whole 'effective altruism' was a farce to get on the good side of the progressive elite and their media, as he was also funneling money to republicans but more discretely all for the same reasons: political connections. And it worked given the initial portrait left wing media made of him, "someone who got way over his head", they gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time and he thought he could roll with that image which would get him off the hook... while he was intimidating his co-defendants by releasing personal informations about them... do you also deem the latter just "fun"?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I never said anything was "just fun". I dont know why you would guess that. Inversely, do you think he had no fun in his time with FTX, and it was all misery?
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      > Hell, I can think of plenty of laws I think are bad or not applicable > Did he feel bad about that fraud? Do you think he thought it was bad? There's a world of difference between "I think drug possession laws are inappropriate" or other capricious or arbitrary laws, and a person who thinks: "It's alright for me to deceive and defraud people, because I don't see that as wrong".
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im not arguing that they are they are equivalent. I think I have better morals that SBF. What I am saying is that I think SBFs thought process was closer to: "It's alright for me to deceive and defraud people, because I don't see that as wrong" than "I think I am doing a morally bad thing with no justification and am a bad guy for doing it" Most people perceive themselves in a good light and justify their actions to themselves, even if an outsider doesnt like their action. I guess Im not very clear on this, because the other poster keeps replying with "but they know they were breaking the law", which seems entirely beside the point.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I didn't say he was oblivious to the crime. I think he thought we was doing good by his moral compass

throw_m239339 2y ago
> I didn't say he was oblivious to the crime. I think he thought we was doing good by his moral compass I didn't say you claimed he was oblivious to his crime either. What you claim being 'his moral compass' didn't stand basic scrutiny during his trial. It was demonstrated he fully knew he was committing fraud, he just didn't care because he was greedy.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Fraud is a crime. That doesn't mean he thought it was bad. Did he feel bad about that fraud? Do you think he thought it was bad? That it was unjustified? People break laws all the time but don't think they did anything morally wrong. Hell, I can think of plenty of laws I think are bad or not applicable
  - throw_m239339 2y ago
    > People break laws all the time but don't think they did anything morally wrong. His trial proved he knew he was breaking the law for personal profit. His behavior absolutely fits the definition of greed. your original argument is > I dont think it was greed. I think he legitimately thought he was doing the right thing, thought it was fun, and thought it was interesting. Again it's all in the trial and the mountains of evidences against him. Personal enrichment was the motive for the fraud, plain and simple. He even admitted the whole 'effective altruism' was a farce to get on the good side of the progressive elite and their media, as he was also funneling money to republicans but more discretely all for the same reasons: political connections. And it worked given the initial portrait left wing media made of him, "someone who got way over his head", they gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time and he thought he could roll with that image which would get him off the hook... while he was intimidating his co-defendants by releasing personal informations about them... do you also deem the latter just "fun"?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I never said anything was "just fun". I dont know why you would guess that. Inversely, do you think he had no fun in his time with FTX, and it was all misery?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > Hell, I can think of plenty of laws I think are bad or not applicable > Did he feel bad about that fraud? Do you think he thought it was bad? There's a world of difference between "I think drug possession laws are inappropriate" or other capricious or arbitrary laws, and a person who thinks: "It's alright for me to deceive and defraud people, because I don't see that as wrong".
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Im not arguing that they are they are equivalent. I think I have better morals that SBF. What I am saying is that I think SBFs thought process was closer to: "It's alright for me to deceive and defraud people, because I don't see that as wrong" than "I think I am doing a morally bad thing with no justification and am a bad guy for doing it" Most people perceive themselves in a good light and justify their actions to themselves, even if an outsider doesnt like their action. I guess Im not very clear on this, because the other poster keeps replying with "but they know they were breaking the law", which seems entirely beside the point.