One exists and is wildly useful. The other is self indulgent bullshit to distract from the fact that Tesla is a terrible company that would be bankrupt without the circus act.
How much fucking money was deposited to make a piece of shit car fly for a couple of seconds that could have changed many many lives makes me sick. Fuck this timeline and fuck that musk gooch
You're the one who started the gotcha game. Where does it end? Do we discuss bank robberies? Is a grocery store robbery okay? Or stealing candy from a child? Where should we draw the line???
Will any of you actually not dodge the question completely? Do you all even have an answer to it?
His analogy doesn’t hold because no amount of crime is okay. But obviously having some amount of money is okay. His logic will lead us to concluding that we should have no amount of wealth to our name. This is obviously wrong.
You are getting ridiculous answers because your premise is ridiculous. Trying to find a specific number under which it's ok to have that amount of money is ridiculous. It completely misses the point. The issue is that these people could use their obscene amount of money for something good. You don't need to find a limit. It doesn't matter. It's not the point.
When have I ever argued against "the point"? I frankly don’t care what you think of Musk or anyone else and neither do they. My question wasn't implying (intentionally at least) that billionaires are good or whatever.
Will any of you actually not dodge the question completely? Do you all even have an answer to it?
His analogy doesn’t hold because no amount of crime is okay. But obviously having some amount of money is okay. His logic will lead us to concluding that we should have no amount of wealth to our name.
You draw the line wherever you want to, it's not an exact science worthy of pedantry. The point is there is no way to join the ultra wealthy class without being a monumental piece of shit
You are talking about logic while totally jettisoning any attempt to steel-man the thing you're arguing against; hardly the act of someone who actually cares about logic.
We can deduce that this other person who isn't me (stop acting like its you against a cabal), thinks that becoming a billionaire marks you out as apsychopath. You have taken the insane leap to suggest that they would have no gradient to their hatred of wealth accumulation when you live in a world absolutly jam packed with philosophies, economic theory and policy by governments that all have functions for limiting the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few while allowing for all sorts of competition and reasonable wealth accumulation, But you just jump to something mad and have the audacity to call to logic of all things?
Your position is the most childlike non-engagement with reality huffy puffy trying to win an argument with facts and logic, but sadly with the facts and logic of an omeba in a petri dish with zero external information. You deserve no explanations; you have done nothing but invent the most stupid possible aveserial position so that your tiny intellect could tackle it.
who cares if someone came back with an imperfect analogy? You didn't deserve the effort of logic you hadn't used any to start the exchange.
I've left all the typos, spelling mistakes and shit in this because it will give your cognitive dissonance something to hide behind so you don't get too hurt by the realisation you're an idiot.
You've appointed yourself legislator by asking where the line is for violent crime.
Of course the premise is stupid, murder is inherently bad but owning money is completely normal. Upon being asked to explain at what amount of money it goes from being okay to not okay, you've made this weird unrelated analogy about crime, and the analogy doesn't even work because it's possible to define where the line is for crime, we've literally defined it and it's in the legislative code of law.
However you've yet to define where the line is for owning money.
The premise is stupid because you've completely misunderstood what the premise is. Your misunderstanding of the premise is indeed very stupid.
The analogy works perfectly. More violence is more bad. Murder isn't bad and then anything below that is perfectly fine.
There isn't a line for owning money because it's about how that money came into their possession, just like crime. Taking $20 from you is a crime if you do not want me to take $20 from you. If you want to give me $20, perhaps because I am giving you something in exchange, that isn't a crime.
Punching someone in the chest is assault, unless it's been agreed that you can punch that person in the chest, perhaps as part of a boxing match.
Likewise, someone earning $1,000,000 through their own labor is fine. Someone earning $1,000,000 by exploiting the labor of others is not.
So why is $1 billion always bad? Because you cannot earn that much money without exploiting the labor of others. It isn't possible. Where exactly is the line where you could possibly earn that much yourself? That's fuzzy. That's hard to tell. But $1 billion so far above that line that we can say with certainty that it has been earned through some degree of exploitation.
Sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Likewise, someone earning $1,000,000 through their own labor is fine. Someone earning $1,000,000 by exploiting the labor of others is not.
This, is stupid. Nobody is being exploited here. Lots of people are being paid money and they can use that money to start and raise a family though, which is real nice. And we get rockets and cars in the case of Musk, plus literal billions in tax to fund schools, libraries, etc.
You've just attached an arbitrary value, and you've been asked to define where the cut-off is, and you cannot
I draw the line at $200m. If you are hoarding wealth so much that you own more than $200m in assets, you are a psycho.
It's an arbitrary amount well beyond enough to money to live a dream life without worries outside of the inevitable.
Wherever you want to argue the line is, it is far far far away from a billion. A billion dollars is actually obscene as I said. A sickening amount of resource hoarding to the extent that it is undeniably genuine violent misanthropy.
I draw the line at $200m. If you are hoarding wealth so much that you own more than $200m in assets, you are a psycho.
So if I take one penny out and get just below that line, I'm safe?
If not, do you see the sippery-slope your emotional argument is making since you do not have a logically sound one? Notice how your point is weak and just about subctive stances on morality instead of any objective metrics?
You didn't even say USD or if that was inflation-adjusted or not.
We deserve shitty leaders until regular people like us bring more nuance into our average conversations.
So if I take one penny out and get just below that line, I'm safe?
Yeah, sure.
our point is weak and just about subctive stances on morality instead of any objective metrics.
This is not unique to resource-hoarding... We make moral values into objective metrics for loads of things (quick obvious examples: age of consent, gestation limits for abortions).
You didn't even say USD or if that was inflation-adjusted or not.
I figured it literally would go without saying in the discussion. People aren't talking about people with a billion zimbabwean dollars or whathaveyou when they criticise the evilness of billionaires.
We deserve shitty leaders until regular people like us bring more nuance into our average conversations.
Lol, wut? Speak for yourself. We are capable of having nuanced conversations and also reaching obvious, correct conclusions. As I said wherever any reasonable person is drawing the line about how much is too much to hoard... it is a loooong way before $1billion.
Having wealth doesn't make one inherently evil and terrible. However objectively evil people tend to excel at gaining obscene amounts of wealth because they don't care how much damage they do to get it...like Elon for example.
I agree we need more nuance in our lives but its really not hard to understand why people say things like "people don't need more than $200 million" when the only billionaires we have thrust into our lives are power hungry pieces of shit like Musk, Bezos, the human reptile, and Trump...none of them are good people and keep collecting unfathomable amounts of wealth beyond what they need while pushing for shit thats going to hurt the common man financially.
Sure there are good rich people who are very philanthropic with their wealth but we don't hear about them hardly ever and it doesn't seem like the majority so why should people change their mind on the rich until they see more from them?
Yeah, people should do NOTHING with their money but help the poor, I agree!!
How many people spend money and time on thins like birthday gifts for loved ones or going to see a movie, or getting a pizza with friends instead of spending that money to help poor people more?
I don't think so. A lot of people want to be billionaires. I want to be a billionaire. It's up to the society to tax people in such way that it's clearly reglamented and equal for everyone without exceptions. The tax system should prevent people from becoming multi-billionaires.
It's not about wanting to be, it's about becoming and being
One does not simply become a billionaire, it effectively requires you to exploit everyone who works for you, often coupled with already having been born rich.
Then, once you have that title, that absurd wealth warps your perspective even more
It is also about wanting to be one. Wanting to have all that resources, more than you could spend in many many lifetimes, instead of wanting other people with nothing to have those resources.
So you made a generalizing statement "Being a billionaire means you are inherently a psychopath."
Then after I asked about stipulations you basically explained a certain KIND of billionaires are bad, and they clearly aren't "inherently" bad like you said they are, that would imply being born into wealth makes you guilty.
So this is honestly just an argument of language. It's horrible for society to generalize like that, if you NEED to add modifiers to make your statement ACTUALLY legitimate... Well, your original statement doesn't hold the value you thought it did.
1.9k
u/True_Protection6842 7h ago
One exists and is wildly useful. The other is self indulgent bullshit to distract from the fact that Tesla is a terrible company that would be bankrupt without the circus act.