Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    the ends don’t justify the means.

    Hitler experimented on hundreds of thousands of Jews and the medical world benefited from it greatly.

    does that mean you’re going to nuance the Nazi regime because they “did some good”?

    no amount of good is worth the ounce of evil used to make it.

    edit: if the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? how many lives must suffer in order for the goal to be achieved? 1 life? 10? 1 million?

    and to those of you claiming Godwin’s law, I used it as an example. I don’t think Bill Gates is Hitler, I never even said anything like that. we could easily use the Tuskegee Airmen and the US Department of Health. How many of those families had to suffer to make the ends justified in your opinion.

    IMO none. there is no amount of loss of life that is acceptance for any means. life is precious and unique and deserves to be protected.

    edit 2: I didn’t realize humanity sold out their morals and ethics for the “greater good”. my mistake thinking we were better than that. sorry.

    • Canadian_Cabinet @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I hate billionaires as much as the next gal, but I think comparing Bill Gates to Hitler is a bit extreme

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I didn’t compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.

        I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of “the ends justify the means”.

        could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.

        • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          You literally used Nazis as an argument against Gates. That’s comparing. What is your deal?

          It’s not selfish philosophies, you shoehorned in Nazis so damn fast. That’s not relatable, it’s a cheap tactic.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      When did I say the ends justified the means? I explicitly said that Bill Gates is a bad person and I didn’t say the foundation was clean or something. I don’t think you understand what that phrase means.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        12 hours ago

        He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work.

        seems like a justification to me dude. you’re literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads “has done some good work”.

        And I sure as hell don’t white wash Bill Gates. You don’t get to that level of wealth and dominance without cracking skulls and ruining lives every step of the way.

        I don’t know if you’re actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being “nuanced” is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the “ends justify the means”.

        • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          It’s not justification. He is a person. It is a non-profit. The non-profit has vaccinated countless people, for instance. That is a good thing. Bill Gates still sucks.

          Why is this complicated? You can’t be serious right now, this is such obvious nonsense on your part.

          • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            11 hours ago

            it’s a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.

            the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.

            so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?

            I don’t understand why you don’t see the obvious correlation between the two so I’ll over simplify it.

            bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.

            you sit and justify his actions by arguing he’s doing good things. I question if he’s doing good things just to do them or if they’re a byproduct of him “cleansing” his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Forget it, they’re out there thinking they’ll be the next one to “benefit” some million dollars from the billionaire table

            • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Dude ffs

              • Bill Gates is a bad person

              • The US has a corrupt charity structure

              • The B&MG Foundation has done some good work

              Please explain to me why these three statements are incompatible. Please explain to me how I have been whitewashing Bill Gates when I’m explicitly saying over and over again he is a bad person. Please explain to me how I have not acknowledged that nonprofits are often used for corrupt purposes.

              I do not understand how many ways I have to say this to get it through your incredibly thick skull.

            • fernandofig@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              You’re being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That’s all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn’t take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn’t exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?