His logic is not flawed to anyone who thinks about it:

1. You have to be a shitty human being to become a billionaire. 2. If you give away all your money, you’re not a shitty human being. 3. But if you’re not a shitty human being, how could you have become a billionaire in the first place?

???

There is no way to win with these people.

▲

some_guy_nobel 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can you quote this thread where somebody said any of that? If you can't, can you explain how you came to those conclusions? And finally, what are you trying to "win," and why? lol

▲

latexr 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're arguing against points no one made. No one in this immediate thread, at least. No one here said you have to be shitty to be a billionaire, or that giving money away stops you from being shitty.

Please don’t straw man. Engage with the arguments in earnest, with what the person said, not what you imagine they said.

▲

dizlexic 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> You could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of being a decent human and creating a better world.

Do you think we're extrapolating too much into the meaning of "decent human"?

	▲	latexr 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Say you asked “what’s the point of running? Why should I do it every day? I’ll only get tired” and I answer “you could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of pushing yourself, out of love for the sport, to be healthier, to become an athlete”. Do you understand that to mean “anyone who doesn’t run every day is unhealthy, not an athlete, and doesn‘t love sports”? Hopefully not, that would be ridiculous. All that’s needed is to point at a swimmer or a cyclist as a counter example. So yes, you are extrapolating too much. Saying “doing this is good or decent” does not automatically mean “not doing this is bad or indecent”. You are not reading some “obvious subtext” (as you put it in another comment), you’re making up beliefs and ascribing negative intentions to complete strangers.