Comedian Asks for $1 Million on YouTube, Millionaire Obliges
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Well, good for him. I think all the haters are just jealous that they didn't think of it first, I know I am. He hasn't yet said what he will do with the money and you have no idea how much the millionaire has already given to charity, hell it might even be a hoax, or a joke. You don't know so just shut up!
One thing is certain though, all the thousands of videos made by idiots copying this guy desperately trying to get free money.
One thing is certain though, all the thousands of videos made by idiots copying this guy desperately trying to get free money.
You clearly don't though. Here you are, sitting chatting on a forum. Who's that helping? Why aren't you down the soup kitchen, or selling your computer, or clothes? Are you trying to suggest that you being able to chat on a forum is more important than their suffering?uro vii said:
Not everyone subscribes to bullshit Peter Singer philosophies. What it amounts to is that despite the fact this person might have given any number of millions to charity, you feel morally superior because they splashed out on something frivolous, like buying Christmas presents for your family.
Is there a reason you choose to completely ignore what I am saying? I never demanded everyone give everything they had all the time to help everyone. I'm not actually asking him to give anything up. I'll always be the first to say that your responsibilities are first and foremost to yourself, and I never once claimed otherwise. Keep yourself healthy, happy and educated, then look towards others. I do what I can after that has been met. He has $1 million after that and chooses to hand over to a youtube comedian and not help those less fortunate, and that is what I condemn.Critical_Sneeze said:
I fail to see how anyone spending a million, if they have it, on a house or boat or youtube comedian should be condemned as a horrible human. Same as millionaires who give out scholarship funds to students. Clearly there are people who want it more, but they're not a twat for doing so.uro vii said:
Its not the same as the millionaire you hands out scholarships because at least he/she is using the money to help people who need it. He may not be saving lives, but they are helping. The millionaire who, on a whim more often then not, decides to buy another house or a boat should be condemned. Let me clarify by saying that a person who buys a house that they intend to live in, or a boat they intend to use often to sail or fish is fine with me. A person who is spending a million to add an other car to eight he already owns, or buying his fourth boat, or third house, or giving a million away to a single youtube comedian who doesn't need it, that person is condemnable.Critical_Sneeze said:
So buying a 1.2 million house isn't condemnable? So if this person bought a 200 grand house and gave the other million to the youtube comedian then he's off the hook?uro vii said:
Do you really need me to answer that question at this point? I've laid out fairly clear template for how I feel these things work. Well if needs must then; no they are not off the hook. He/she have their house, they presumably have had their other needs met if blow a million on a comedian. Really it does matter what you already have, or have spent in the past, it is never okay to waste $1 million on trivial things when it could be better used to feed the less fortunate, or to educate, or help build hospitals, etc.Critical_Sneeze said:
And because I know you're going to want to ask; your basic needs/rights + happiness (as far as I am aware, health and eduction fall under basic rights, but if not then add them to this list) are what do not count as trivial. Extra cars, houses, boats, blowing money on whims doesn't fall under any of those needs and therefore they are wastes of money, spent trivially and could be spent on more helpful things without any detriment to the person who originally owned the money.
Ok. Do you consider being on this forum, or owning a computer, or buying clothes new, to be essential to maintain your basic needs/rights?uro vii said:
Why hasn't this ever happened for me? Oh yeah because I never asked for it. As an asides though, Aubrey seems cool.
Again I've answered this before. "needs/rights + happiness" computer = happiness + education. Forum = happiness + it takes up no resources that could otherwise be used. Clothes = well clothing (shelter?) + happiness to a small extent. To have to many clothes, to the extent that you don't use them, or overly expensive clothes doesn't fall under the above needs/happiness. In contrast, if you are a hardcore gamer, who really garners happiness from pc gaming then I have no problem with you having a highly expensive computer, or a musician having a highly expensive guitar, or a football having an expensive pair of boots. Its the pointless over-the-top stuff I have a problem with, like throwing a million dollars at a youtube comedian.Critical_Sneeze said:
Also, this discussion is beginning to get redundant, all I've said now has already been said in my previous posts, and it seems like you're just looking for flaws in my argument rather then actually making an argument of your own, so I suggest, unless you do genuinely have new points to bring up, that we end it here.
No I think I get. As long as he says "giving money to budding young musical/comedy/acting talents = happiness" then he's off the hook. It's nice that you use an immeasurable unit like "happiness". The fact is, bar this one act of kindness, you know nothing about this person and have chosen to make massive sweeping generalisations about the kind of person they are. It boils down to "I don't mind people being frivolous with their money, as long as they're frivolous in ways I approve of."uro vii said:
Look, please read what I am actually writing, and don't put words in my mouth. I never mentioned talent whatsoever, in fact I specifically mention a gamer who games for joy and you still chose to skew my words. Nor did I ever say these people should be given any money, I am, after all, disapproving of this person giving $1 million to a comedian. What I said as long as people spend their money on things that they want, will use, and will bring happiness then I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with all frivolous spending. I agree "happiness" is a concept that is far to vague to accurately gauge how frivolous spending is, but at the same time, I'm not presenting a concept that is at all difficult to grasp. Furthermore, the only thing I've said about this person in particular is that I disapprove of them wasting $1 million on a comedian. If you can show me any example where I do otherwise, please go ahead. Now please, if you are to respond to this post, respond to what I've actually written instead of inventing points to argue against.Critical_Sneeze said:
Funny because I would think that the people who made those cars, houses and boats would be happy for the business to feed their families. And then there's the people who made or gathered the materials the the constructors used, they are in turn being paid with that money. But silly me. That's obviously trivial spending and not benefiting anyone.uro vii said:
That's ultimately my problem with these kind of conversations. Money does not exist in a vacuum of giving and spending. That one million dollars is not simply removed from existence.
I never said you did, that was my own example. Talking of putting words in peoples' mouths.uro vii said:
Of course you do. The guy giving the money might be made very happy by his act of kindness, and the guy receiving it will also be very happy. Again, you're only happy with it if it's spent on stuff you'd approve of.uro vii said:
If you insist...uro vii said:
uro vii said:
That sounds less like disapproval and more like a blatant insult.
Plus, I thought you'd ended this? Honestly, I can see we're both set in our ways and we can agree to disagree.