[PostOnce]

There's more to life--and business--than money. Do we want to take advice from a man who hates the public? Do we want to build that future?

Even if what he says sounds legitimate, should we not question whether there are motives and ethics unmentioned that we might not have noticed, given his past behavior?

Should we mention it to viewers who may not be aware of who the man is, so they can ask those same questions as they watch?

If a man runs for office, and it turns out he used to be a member of the Klan, should that not weigh on the rest of his speeches, since presumably you can determine who he is not from what he has said, but from what he has done?

[drak0n1c]

Ad hominem should not totally discount ideas in an unrelated discussion. Of course you should weigh someone's biases and conduct with what they are saying to the degree that their credibility is relevant to each point (for example, if they are relying on their personal experience and aren't mentioning supporting evidence). However, I don't see how the trend of totally "cancelling" people is good for discourse or the pursuit of reason.

[m0llusk]

Hates the public? Are you sure? He bought some property and dared to imagine he actually owned it. Foolish and untrue, but at some level reasonable enough. None of that changes the demonstrated value of his advice regarding business.

[PostOnce]

It may not change the value of his business advice... but then again, it may. It may be that he doesn't care about people. It may be that he would recommend you pollute a river to save money. I'm not saying his advice is without merit, I'm just saying there may be side effects of his advice that he's not mentioning, given who he seems to be as a person.

All that said, I haven't met him, I've just read the news, and maybe they have their own narrative and that isn't who he really is. I'm just saying we should consider both sides.