True, although the difference is only in where the money came from.

Let's say Bill Gates was Iraqi, and he came by all his money legally. Would you see nothing wrong with him building huge mansions while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were suffering from malnutrition or dying of easily treatable disease?

Me, I would support his *right* to do so -- while criticizing his *decision* to do so.

__________________
Man up.

money to worry much about morally critiquing what other people do with theirs.

See, i think my first responsibility is to manage my OWN fiscal priorities and make sure they are in line with my ethics before I move on to a critique of other people's fiscal priorities and ethics.

I'm not sure why it's my business to critique what Bill Gates does with his money. Why do you feel it is yours?

In the case of Saddam, the money was stolen from the people of Iraq and diverted to serve his selfish interests. In the case of Bill Gates, the man has given hundreds of millions of dollars to charity, so if he chooses to live in a mansion, I don't really care. It doesn't harm me for him to do so, whereas Saddam's choice to steal from the people of Iraq did in fact do great harm.

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

Sure. But the two aren't mutually exclusive. I can manage my own priorities AND have opinions about others, as long as I don't fall victim to the "mote in thine eye" hypocrisy.

How else does one apply societal pressure?

Besides, it's not like my opinion is law. It's not like Gates is even aware of my opinion. But when we criticize "conspicuous consumption", for example, we're making a criticism of others' spending choices. It's only illegitimate if we somehow take his choice away.

Fair enough. Much of the criticism of Gates' house came before he established his foundation, when he wasn't giving *anything* away. His charitable work since has muted much of that criticism.

At the time, many people thought his lack of charitable giving was a sign of greed and indifference. I tended to agree with other analyses that said Gates didn't really care that much about money, and he had so much he literally didn't know what to do with it.

__________________
Man up.

tens of BILLIONS to charity. He has given more to charity than any human in history. So it's hard to whine about his house. He could afford a far more expensive one.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Kirstie Alley once had a cocaine problem. When she beat it, she extolled the virtues of being drug-free, and said that now instead of spending $400 a week on drugs, she spent it on fresh flowers in her home. Immediately, people began stating that the money would be better spent giving to drug clinics. Not a single person asked if she donated to drug programs. I wanted to ask them what they had against florist making a living.

Raytri, in your scenario, I would feel much better if the money was used to hire the poor thus allowing them to make a living rather than just giving them charity. I don't give to beggars, but when a poor person knocks on my door asking to pull weeds or mow my lawn, I give them a chance.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Remind me again why you feel entitled to care how other people spend the money they have earned through their own efforts? why should your opinions of their expenditures matter?

Why does society have an entitlement to tell individuals waht to do with their own property? I mean, I can see it in some circumstances, but you act as if society has some right to interject it's opinions into people's checking accounts. why do you believe that is the case?

Why do you care if someone else conspicuously consumes?

Either way, why should what he does with his money be the business of anyone other than him as long as that money is fairly obtained?[/quote]

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

Agreed. When I lived in New Jersey, I got hassled by panhandlers every day. I almost never *gave* them money. But if they were selling something, no matter how unneeded, I often bought it. Because they were trying to EARN the money, not just demand it.

When I talk about charity, I don't usually mean cash transfers to the poor. I mean investing in programs that attack the roots of problems.

__________________
Man up.

Because I'm human, and I share the planet with them.

Society does not have an "entitlement" to tell people what to do. But spending money is an action, and individuals are not immune to the consequences of their actions, including societal opinion. It's up to them whether they want to heed that opinion in some way.

The more money you have and the more opulent your choice, the more your action will stand out and the more opinions there will be on it.

Because I think it reflects poor values, and I don't want my society to encourage such values.

Do I picket their house? Do I pass laws prohibiting such behavior? No. I merely express my dislike of their choice. I fail to see the evil in that.

__________________
Man up.

So then, when they come and peek through your bedroom windows and tell you that non-missionary position sex with your wife is sinful, i suppose they are equally entitled.

Sorry, not good enough.

And I tend to think that individuals are private entities, and insofar as no crime was committed in gaining their funds, are entitled to spend whatever funds they wish however they wish to spend it without nosie busybodies butting in and telling them what to do with it. But then, I suppose I am no longer a liberal.

So, then, are religious folks equally entitled to butt their noses into you private bedroom and express public opinions on what you do there? And, if someone does, should we pay attention?

I still fail to see how this follows. What poor values does spending money on an advertisement reflect, and how is society harmed?

Nah, there is nothing wrong with nosey, moralizing busybodies. Society needs more churchladies.

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

You're comparing opinions about actions taken in public with opinions on actions performed in private.

Hint: if they have to look in my window to find out about it, it's none of their business.

You're right. I should have no opinions about anything done by anybody, ever. Opinions are bad. Communicating those opinions are especially bad. Wouldn't want anyone to know I had opinions, would I?

I was referring to conspicious consumption. I did not make the argument that the money spent on the ad was morally wrong.

Surely there's a range of intermediate choices between "nobody is ever criticized for anything" and "churchladies."

__________________
Man up.