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.

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

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

I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.

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.

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

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

It's still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?

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?

Nope. 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. He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work. Surely this isn’t too nuanced for you to understand?

Edit: no clue why it automatically capitalized wash

Torvalds is still very active on the Linux kernel. As far as I know, he's in charge of it and makes major decisions about its direction.

Bill Gates retired from Microsoft in 2008.

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

That means there are highschool seniors who weren't even alive while Bill Gates was at Microsoft. Interns might not even know who he is.

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?

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