The cynical words of an old law professor seem again apt, sadly:
“Domestic law is a matter of law.
“Foreign laws are a matter of expert evidence.
“International law is a matter of fiction.”
I must emphasise this is not my view, but a view often expressed in legal circles, usually off the record.
Lost_My_Mind
in reply to Gemini24601 • • •Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Gates retired? And I have no idea if Torvalds is still active.
But historical photo aside, isn't this meeting a bunch of nothing?
LandedGentry
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
Valmond
Unknown parent • • •thisbenzingring
Unknown parent • • •LandedGentry
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
Valmond
in reply to LandedGentry • • •Their pr firm seems to function very well at least.
Guess you're going to whitewash bezos, musk and zuckerberg next?
LandedGentry doesn't like this.
LandedGentry
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
GreenKnight23
in reply to LandedGentry • • •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.
LandedGentry
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
GreenKnight23
in reply to LandedGentry • • •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".
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
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
GreenKnight23
Unknown parent • • •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
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
GreenKnight23
in reply to LandedGentry • • •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
Unknown parent • • •That's not how it works, it's not like "I do some good, now I can do some bad". It does not even out.
Bad people doesn't become good because "some good things came out of it".
If you do bad, then you are bad.
Honytawk
Unknown parent • • •The charity did more than some good though.
Also, name one good historical person that didn't do at least some bad.
It is almost like things aren't black and white but more like Yin and Yang.
Valmond
in reply to LandedGentry • • •Name one bad historical person that didn't do at least some good.
Your moral compass is broken.
LandedGentry
in reply to Valmond • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
Valmond
in reply to LandedGentry • • •Every dictator did "some good work", are you thinking they are good people?
IMO your moral compass need maintenance.
LandedGentry
in reply to Valmond • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
LandedGentry
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
Valmond
in reply to LandedGentry • • •I answered Honytawk 🤷🏼♀️?
You seems to be up in arms defending a shitty billionaire and his shitty charity, repeating over and over again that they did "some good", what kind of argument even is that? Dictators do "some good" too you know.
LandedGentry
Unknown parent • • •sdfsafsafsdaf
:::
Valmond
in reply to LandedGentry • • •I don't think you realise the bad things he did (and still does, like patenting everything he 'funds' in research) versus the "some good" things coming out of it, that's about it I think. That's why your comments make me feel like you excuse an execrable people "just because 'some good' came out of it.
BTW I had to scroll throug the whole original post, Connect (the lemmy soft) lost your answers, so if you answer to this I might not be able to respond.
LandedGentry doesn't like this.