Les Kern said:
This whole line of thought makes no sense at all. $1.00 is just not a billion. And a billion is still a billion even if it come from a billionaire. And just what is an acceptable level of charity that will pass your test? 10%? 20% Really? So YOU decide what is really charity and what is more a way to get "Person of the Year"?
No, you don't understand. I said that the above poster is correct that that wouldn't get someone person of the year. What I'm saying is that that someone would be giving more of himself than Bill Gates is. He wouldn't be making much of a difference, because he can't, but that man would be worthy of just as much respect.
I'm also saying it depends on what percentage and how the money was obtained and other things the person does. I mean, if we're talking about a guy who earned two billion dollars because he created some incredibly good product or service or did something else good to earn it, then gives half of it to charity, vs a guy with 100 billion who gives one or two to charity and obtained his billion by creating a crappy product and using market dominance to force it onto consumers even in direct opposition of the law, really, who is more deserving of a
Person of the Year award?
And can you really say he made all his money illegally? Of COURSE he didn't. Can you say that he has all his money liquid? Of COURSE he doesn't.
But you can sit there typing away, PISSED off that Gates is giving BILLIONS away to some whom otherwise would have NO help. Who the F*** are you anyway? God? Nah, just bitter for some unknown reason.
Merry Christmas. Time to upgrade to Office X dude.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. I'm not ticked off that Bill Gates is giving away money. It's a good thing that he's at least giving away some of it. I'm ticked off that he can do all kinds of unethical things in the business world, rip off millions of consumers, entire countries, break laws, but he donates some money and that AUTOMATICALLY makes him "Person of the Year" and a good person. He's basicly BUYING his way into being hailed as man of the year, and because he throws some money at charities then anything he does is ignored.
Stating Bill Gates does some good things with his money is fine. But I think that if someone gets Person of the Year, it shouldn't be because they did good things with their money while doing all kinds of unethical things on the side to make that money.
The arguement can be made that Bill Gates did quite a lot of
bad in the world in addition to the good. Is that really Person of the Year material?
Your opinion and my opinion may differ, but you don't have to be so angry about it. Please, discuss rationally.
