[drharby]

Because thats his perogative?

[PhasmaFelis]

I don't understand why you think this is a good argument. There are plenty of things people are allowed to do that they really shouldn't.

[drharby]

Its not a justification, it is a matter of fact that his decision making is not dependent on the masses' value system outside the realm of law.

Thats what anti trust laws are for.

I perceive any such talk that he should spend his money a certain way as propaganda.

[PhasmaFelis]

So your argument is "anything you can legally get away with is morally acceptable"?

[drharby]

There is NO ARGUMENT.

An argument posits that there is a factual inconsistency that needs to be clarified through dialogue.

What you are proposing is a debate.

I AM NOT DEBATING - I am stating the fact that in American society the people have political vehicles to enforce cultural morality as codified through law.

And i continue this dialogue because it is important for people to recognize that using morality as a metric is arbitrary when discussion such matters necause at the end of the day morality varies from pers9n to person and culture to culture

[PhasmaFelis]

That's...not how debate works. You can't just declare that you're not debating while continuing to debate, at least not when we're debating matters of opinion like moral responsibilities.

[drharby]

You are clearly filtering my messages. I have zero desire pursuing this alleged dialogue.

All i am trying to communicate is that he can do what ever he wants.

[saudioger]

prerogative, and yeah - if you're the richest person on the planet it would be nice if the employees that got you there weren't living paycheck to paycheck.

[chii]

but he may not be so rich if his workers didn't live paycheck to paycheck...