Valid point

[u/DelicateAurora]

[u/Hexamancer]

"Murderers are bad"

"Wow does that mean assault is okay? Mugging? Where should we draw the line???"

[u/THELEADERPLAYER → u/Hexamancer]

Completely putting aside the ridiculous false equivalency, completely evading the question isn't exactly the gotcha you think it is.

[u/nildro → u/THELEADERPLAYER]

This is the deepest irony given your 'gotcha"

[u/THELEADERPLAYER → u/nildro]

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.

[u/r3volts → u/THELEADERPLAYER]

Yes, having $999m makes you likely a psychopath.

There is no ethical way to accrue that much money short of inheriting or winning it.

[u/Aegi → u/r3volts]

That isn't the question. The question is where to you draw the line, with the natural follow-up being how that criteria is decided.

[u/r3volts → u/Aegi]

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

[u/nildro → u/THELEADERPLAYER]

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.