If Bill Gates ran for president, he would win

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Saturday, January 6, 2007 01:36
VIEWED: 4940
PAGE 4 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 7:51 PM

I was just disputing the presumptions that because he's rich he must be a genuis; and because he gives away an insignificant amount of his wealth he's a hero. I didn't say or even imply any of the things you posted.

You should have a different sign-off - posting strawmen to derail debate

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I was just disputing the presumptions that because he's rich he must be a genuis; and because he gives away an insignificant amount of his wealth he's a hero. I didn't say or even imply any of the things you posted.

You did see the question marks in my previous post right?

Quote:

You should have a different sign-off - posting strawmen to derail debate

Do as you say, not as you do?

Posting to stir stuff up.

RUE

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 8:40 PM

Well, you just used the quote function, along with, well, quotes to frame your argument. Oh, and posting your arguments as 'rhetorical' questions doesn't get you off the hook.

Should you have a different sign-off - posting strawmen to derail debate?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Well, you just used the quote function, along with, well, quotes to frame your argument.

And the whole time I thought I was quoting your post and questioning you on the referenced quotes.

Quote:

Oh, and posting your arguments as 'rhetorical' questions doesn't get you off the hook.

What about my questions was rhetorical? I am trying to get a handle on your extreme distaste for Bill Gates and your Franciscan views on charity.
And what or who's hook am I trying to get off of?

Posting to stir stuff up.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
What about my questions was rhetorical? I am trying to get a handle on your extreme distaste for Bill Gates and your Franciscan views on charity.

I think the point is that there is a difference between Charity and cheap advertising.

I give a larger percentage of my wage to charity than Bill Gates, no one calls my a hero, most call me a C**T around here, although being hated by some of the people who post here can be nothing short of a badge of pride.

Point is I don't give money to charity for personal gain, I rather suspect Bill does.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I think the point is that there is a difference between Charity and cheap advertising.

I give a larger percentage of my wage to charity than Bill Gates, no one calls my a hero, most call me a C**T around here, although being hated by some of the people who post here can be nothing short of a badge of pride.

Point is I don't give money to charity for personal gain, I rather suspect Bill does.

Perhaps Bill should be more like Branson and spend all of his money on breaking records and space travel

.
The guy gives millions to charities through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
and it is simply cheap publicity because he still has loads more money.
Do you think charitable donations are only valid if they meet a certain percentage of a person's net worth?
Do you think the numerous organizations that receive support from the foundation care?
Do your charitable donations mean more because you have less money than Bill even though, and I'm guessing here, he has donated several million more up until now than you?
Can rich people actually have a social conscience or should all acts of philanthropy be questioned for ulterior motives?
That's right, I'm just brimming with questions today.

Posting to stir stuff up.

RUE

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 11:03 PM

Nobody,

OK, here is an analysis of your straw-man arguments (ellipses to save space).

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
sacrifice:
If I'm making $10,000 a year with no other assets and give $500 to charity, it's a really big deal ...

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Charity is only good and noble if you bankrupt yourself in the process?

I was responding to others who felt that Billy's donations were some measure of deep internal goodness. My point was that since those donations amount to an infinitesimal fraction of a penny - relatively speaking - they seemed more like trivial gestures. At best. But you missed the point and argued that I said one had to bankrupt themselves to be charitable. Please, find me that quote.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
tax benefit:
Billy is notorious for donating 'his' product (which was invented by others and was in the public domain) at full market value ...

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Rich people should not be allowed a tax write-off like everyone else?

You sort-of missed the point, again. Did I even come close to saying it was a tax-code problem? No, I said it was the nature of the 'gift'. That's what makes this yet another straw-man argument. You are arguing against a point I didn't make.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
goodwill
Aside from the tax and market $$ benefits (above), well, there is the 'goodwill' he earns. ... Genius? Robin Hood? Hardly.

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
The jig is up Bill, stop giving away your ill-gotten money to charity.

Well here you posted yet another straw-man argument. That's three out of three if you're counting. Did I say he should stop giving his money to charity? Please, feel free to find it. What I said was giving away money doesn't make him into something he's not.

So please go back to lurking until you can discuss like an adult.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Perhaps Bill should be more like Branson and spend all of his money on breaking records and space travel.

I fail to see how that's equivalent? No one is saying Branson's space and record breaking endeavours make him a good person.

Quote:
The guy gives millions to charities through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
and it is simply cheap publicity because he still has loads more money.

It's also cheap publicity because it costs less for the same benefit as regular forms. Ergo.

Quote:
Do you think charitable donations are only valid if they meet a certain percentage of a person's net worth?

No, I'm pretty sure the money is still there. But there's such a thing as perspective, for instance, whose more charitable, the man who has two cans of baked beans and gives on away, or a man who has a million and gives away ten?

Quote:
Do you think the numerous organizations that receive support from the foundation care?

No, why does this matter? You say he's a good man because he gives money to charity, I say the act of giving money away doesn't automatically make someone good.

Quote:
Do your charitable donations mean more because you have less money than Bill even though, and I'm guessing here, he has donated several million more up until now than you?

On a practical level, of course not, on a personal one, I don't really know, I haven't thought about any charitable donations I make in that way. Does being rich and therefore having more money to give automatically make someone a better person?

Quote:
Can rich people actually have a social conscience

I think I could make a fairly compelling case that most people become rich BECAUSE they lack a social conscience.

Quote:
or should all acts of philanthropy be questioned for ulterior motives?

Should all acts of philanthropy signify someone as a good person despite past behaviour?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
OK, here is an analysis of your straw-man arguments (ellipses to save space).

Why so interested in saving space all of a sudden?

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Charity is only good and noble if you bankrupt yourself in the process?

I was responding to others who felt that Billy's donations were some measure of deep internal goodness. My point was that since those donations amount to an infinitesimal fraction of a penny - relatively speaking - they seemed more like trivial gestures. At best. But you missed the point and argued that I said one had to bankrupt themselves to be charitable. Please, find me that quote.

I will reframe my original question. What do you consider an act of charity? If someone drops a few coins into a salvation army kettle do you not consider that a charitable act because it may be a fraction of the money in their bank account?

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
tax benefit:
Billy is notorious for donating 'his' product (which was invented by others and was in the public domain) at full market value ...
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Rich people should not be allowed a tax write-off like everyone else?

You sort-of missed the point, again. Did I even come close to saying it was a tax-code problem? No, I said it was the nature of the 'gift'. That's what makes this yet another straw-man argument. You are arguing against a point I didn't make.

You did not say it was a tax code problem. But you did say the following

Quote:

Billy is notorious for donating 'his' product (which was invented by others and was in the public domain) at full market value. Not only does he get a tax write-off, but he inculcates his software into education systems around the globe.

It read to me like you think Bill should not be allowed to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rue
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
The jig is up Bill, stop giving away your ill-gotten money to charity.

Well here you posted yet another straw-man argument. That's three out of three if you're counting. Did I say he should stop giving his money to charity? Please, feel free to find it. What I said was giving away money doesn't make him into something he's not.

Of course you did not say he should stop giving away money, the above quote quite clearly states that I did. By the way Rue, have you ever met Bill Gates? Or are you forming your opinions about him based on incomplete information gleaned from the internet? that would be akin to me forming an opinion of you based on your postings in this forum. And we can both agree on the inherent unfairness of that.

Posting to stir stuff up.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, January 4, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Perhaps Bill should be more like Branson and spend all of his money on breaking records and space travel.

I fail to see how that's equivalent? No one is saying Branson's space and record breaking endeavours make him a good person.

My point was Bill Gates could be trying to circumnavigate the globe in a ballon instead of running his foundation. There is no law stating people must give to charity. Bill Gates has every right to horde every single dollar he has and give nothing to charity. He chooses to give and should not be derided for it.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you think charitable donations are only valid if they meet a certain percentage of a person's net worth?

No, I'm pretty sure the money is still there. But there's such a thing as perspective, for instance, whose more charitable, the man who has two cans of baked beans and gives on away, or a man who has a million and gives away ten?

Who is more charitable, the man who has a million cans of beans and gives away ten, or the man who has a million cans of beans and gives away none?

Quote:

Quote:
Do you think the numerous organizations that receive support from the foundation care?

No, why does this matter? You say he's a good man because he gives money to charity, I say the act of giving money away doesn't automatically make someone good.

Say Bill donates $100,000 to a soup kitchen. Whatever small percentage of his net worth that is, it still buys a heck of a lot of soup.
I have not stated whether I think Bill is a good man or not, I don't know the guy. But he is a better man than someone who gives 0% of their money to charity IMHO.

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Does being rich and therefore having more money to give automatically make someone a better person?

I would have to say no. But larger donations have a more immediate impact which could be seen as a good thing.

Quote:

Quote:
or should all acts of philanthropy be questioned for ulterior motives?

Should all acts of philanthropy signify someone as a good person despite past behaviour?

I would like to think that we still live in a world where past indiscretions can be atoned for through philanthropic endeavours. And whether Bill has a social consciece or not, many people have benefited from his foundation and will continue to do so. I think that is the main point, not if Bill is a publicity whore or whether his Mother got him his big break or not.

And in the interests of keeping this thread on topic, I do not think Bill Gates could be president until he cuts his teeth in politics first. Perhaps Govenor of Washington for starters.

Posting to stir stuff up.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE