Bill Gates is a God..

[novon]

I'd say Bill Gates has affected peoples lives in ways that go past his charity. I personally have had my last two jobs as a result of people who retired off microsoft money and started businesses.

 

[Optimus]

IamDavid:

I don't know if you are referring to me, but I never said Bill was bad - I said good for him giving money to charity... trust me, I think rich = good!


axelfox:

I don't think Bill signing a check compares one ounce to Mother Theresa devoting her entire life to helping the poor.

Bill's money went to training and educating people, and did much good I'm sure.

Mother Theresa saved countless lives, raised awareness, and inspired many to continue her work.

We judge people on actions - Bill's were good, but not much effort or sacrifice on his part, really.

Mother Theresa gave EVERYTHING.


NovoN:
Yes, Bill has had tremendous effect on society. But it wasn't charity - he is a skilled and smart businessman, and a true American success story. But MS was not built out of the charity of giving people like me jobs! (yes, my hobby and job are both very much thanks to Bill).


To clarify this whole argument - I wouldn't argue for one second that Bill has had a huge impact on the economy and computing, nor that Bill did a good thing giving some of his wealth to charities. Only that a) his actions were good, but overshadowed by many, many other people who never get recognized, and that his actions were certainly not god-like!

 

[Superwombat]

It's all selfishly motivated anyway. He takes the smallest fraction of his wealth that might actaully go to taxes and donates it instead so he doesn't have as large of a tax burden. His giving 20 billion is equivelent to me throwing a penny to a bum on the street.

I'm sure the poor are very happy to have his help. And I'm glad he's donating and such, but this doesn't draw away from the fact that he is, in fact, evil. And has done more to stifle innovation in the software industry than any other person in history.

 

[SSP]

All that should matter is that Bill Gates help fund the programs that really need the money, and people like Mother Theresa can do a better job with the funding they get. The bottom line is, he helped out society the only way he can (would you spend your time helping out the poor if your are rich, or would you just write a check?).

Whether it?s excess or not is irrelevant. At least he gave it away, compared to some rich bastards who keep anything and everything for them selves.


BTW, he is not a God.

 

[novon]

didn't he say he is going to give almost all of it away beforw he dies?

 

[jacobnero6918]

Bill Gates is a smart man and he has produced a pretty good OS. The problem is his business practice of trying to squeeze every nickel he can out of people. He just charges to much for what he sells. Lets face it, if you could buy a full version of Windows 2000 for $50 it wouldnt be a bad deal for the OS your getting but he charges $279 I beleive.


Also he only has to give 10% according to the bible, there is no sin in being rich. The sin is in how you get rich.

 

[StageLeft]

As much as some people hate Gates I can't rightly say the world would have been better without his influence. Regardless of his charitable donations and what ever else he has done good, even with what he has done bad his company has still really driven hard into technology and changed business for the better.

That and the fact that I use his products for my employment - er did anyway

I would love to see his will and how much he has set for donations. I've heard he is only giving like 1% to his relatives (yes I know thats still a sickening amount), if that is the case some charities are going to feel quite good.

 

[Optimus]

SSP:
Yes, it was good that he gave money to charity, and as I said earlier, rich people who give nothing back are plain wrong.

And that it is excess, _is_ important - that money was to him what 3 cents would be to someone who earned $40,000 a year. Its good to give that 3 cents, but if thats all they did for charity, they could not expect to be lauded and praised by society. Nor would they be compared to Mother Theresa or even those who give so much more.

Someone who gives 1 hour a week to a volunteer at a soup kitchen has done more than Bill did writing that check.


NovoN:
If Bill gives away everthing before he dies, then that is even better. And if he gave away everything to the point that he lived in a normal house and retired to a normal life (i.e. only kept enough to retire comfortably, not rich) then I would call him an amazingly charitable man!

Because he would have given up something for others. Something he doesn't have another billion of to replace what he gave.

 

[Optimus]

jacobnero:
I'm not trying to hold him or anyone to any percent - he has the right to give nothing. All I'm saying is that he deserves acclaim and response to match his personal actions. In other words, "Thats nice, Bill". He gave as I would give 3 cents.

"Thats nice, Optimus."

See?

Skoorb:
I'm glad for Bill's influence on the economy and society - heck, especially for my job!
But founding and building MS was not charity. (although MS's marketing department could really run with that!)

 

[Looney]

<< Moralpanic - if you are going to decide who I am and what I do for charity with no information, and reject anything I say I do because we are on the net, then this argument is useless. You are not someone who can carry on a logical and sensible debate if this is how you think >>



Well, if you want to have a rational argument, i'm all for it... i'm double majoring in Philosophy, so i would think i have some critical/logical reasoning skills.

But you got defensive when i said i doubt you would ever contribute as much as Bill Gates to society...you replied saying how can i judge you if i don't know anything about you do... well, base upon the facts i have through the web, am i suppose to take your word that you do charity work, and thus is equal to Bill Gates or better? Unless you're a saint like Mother Teresa. And by the way, judgments and opinions are made everyday of everybody, and if you're too sensitive about that, then perhaps this BBS is too open for you.

 

[Looney]

<< All I'm saying is that he deserves acclaim and response to match his personal actions. In other words, &quot;Thats nice, Bill&quot;. He gave as I would give 3 cents. >>



First off, his networth is much higher than his real wealth is. Most of it are inflated MS stocks. And he doesn't have to give one single penny to charity, that's the freedom of a capitalistic society. He could use the money for other projects if he wanted... and btw, he's only leaving his daughter with a few million dollars... everythign else he's giving to charity when he dies. Now, how many people do you think would do that?

 

[Optimus]

Hmmmm... yes, I did defend myself when you said:



<< he's still contributed alot more to charity then you will ever. And for that, he is a better man than you would ever be to society. >>



And when I try to counter that judgement by saying what I do, you decide I'm being defensive?




<< i'm double majoring in Philosophy, so i would think i have some critical/logical reasoning skills. >>



One would hope so... but it doesn't matter - you are not double majoring in Philosophy. After all:

base upon the facts i have through the web, am i suppose to take your word that you are double majoring in Philosophy, and thus is equal to a great thinker or better? Unless you're a genious like Plato. And by the way, judgments and opinions are made everyday of everybody, and if you're too sensitive about that, then perhaps this BBS is too open for you.

How's that?

And for post 2:



<< Are you really that ignorant? >>


No, although you say I am so ipso facto I must be, QED...



<< First off, his networth is much higher than his real wealth is. Most of it are inflated MS stocks. >>


I am speaking of his net worth - his worth with his stock is inconceivable, instead of his net worth, which is merely astronomical.



<< And he doesn't have to give one single penny to charity, that's the freedom of a capitalistic society. He could use the money for other projects if he wanted... >>


As I said in an earlier post - he doesn't have to give a cent, or an amount, or a percent - but he deserves the same measure of admiration as anyone based on his own personal actions , not on the dollar amount on the check.



<< and btw, he's only leaving his daughter with a few million dollars... everythign else he's giving to charity when he dies. Now, how many people do you think would do that? >>



Lots - other give their lives, time, energy... all are worthy of thanks, and all are good. If Bill gives enough to make a dent in his wealth, or especially the money he doesn't need, then he would be a truly great philanthropist. I hope he does, I really do.
But simply writing checks for a very small percent of his wealth, while GOOD, is the same personal action as me giving a very small percent of my wealth (a few cents).

Good, but not great, not god-like, not on the scale of Mother Theresa, and not the same as someone giving their time, energy, or as much as they can from what they have.

/edited for a tag mistake

 

[Looney]

<< But simply writing checks for a very small percent of his wealth, while GOOD, is the same personal action as me giving a very small percent of my wealth (a few cents). >>



Do you really equate his giving billions to you giving a few cents? You really don't see the difference in that? Lets ask society who is the better man... Bill Gates giving one billion or you giving a few cents.




<< Lots - other give their lives, time, energy... all are worthy of thanks, and all are good. If Bill gives enough to make a dent in his wealth, or especially the money he doesn't need, then he would be a truly great philanthropist. I hope he does, I really do. >>



So his deeds are less worthy because he found a more efficient way of helping the world? Is that what you're saying?




<< Good, but not great, not god-like, not on the scale of Mother Theresa, and not the same as someone giving their time, energy, or as much as they can from what they have. >>



I never said he was god-like, and infact i denounced that. And Mother Theresa had a lifetime to make her mark... he's only halfway there.

 

[Pastore]

<< Do you really equate his giving billions to you giving a few cents? You really don't see the difference in that? Lets ask society who is the better man... Bill Gates giving one billion or you giving a few cents >>



well... if it is a poor man, giving his only quarter to his name to charity, then in a way i could see how he would be more generous than bill...

 

[Looney]

Anybody can make a quarter in this society... making a quarter is as simple as walking from phonebooths to phonebooths looking in the change slot.

But what's the time and energy in making a billion? Granted, his money MAKES money now, but his initial wealth, investment, required time, energy, insight, luck, and god knows what else.

 

[Optimus]

<< Do you really equate his giving billions to you giving a few cents? You really don't see the difference in that? Lets ask society who is the better man... Bill Gates giving one billion or you giving a few cents. >>



Thats the example I gave to illustrate EQUAL giving...

So lets say Frank gives $100 of the $200 he has to spend this Christmas (%50), and Bill gives $1 million. Lets estimate (according to the latest, he is estimated at $41 billion net) Bill is worth - without stock - only $1 billion, so thats %.1

Ask people:

1) Who did more for society?
People will of course answer Bill - more money does more. Right?

But ask:

2) Who was more charitable?
That is where the guy who gave half of what he had is the answer. Unless all you can see is dollar signs...




<< So his deeds are less worthy because he found a more efficient way of helping the world? Is that what you're saying? >>



No, his deeds are worth what he personally put into them. He writes a check for .1% of his wealth, it is as noble and charitable as anyone doing the same. Its the opposite - his wealth does NOT make his same actions better!




<< I never said he was god-like, and infact i denounced that. And Mother Theresa had a lifetime to make her mark... he's only halfway there. >>



Halfway to Mother Theresa?! Halfway? He isn't even on the same scale. She gave her entire life - every waking moment, to personally working tirelessly for the poorest of the poor. She won a Noble Peace prize and inspired millions - Princesses, presidents, and people from every walk of life.

Bill could give every penny he ever earned and not catch up. (although he would be a very great man to do so, before you start)

 

[Optimus]

<< But what's the time and energy in making a billion? Granted, his money MAKES money now, but his initial wealth, investment, required time, energy, insight, luck, and god knows what else. >>



And you think he did that for charity?

 

[Looney]

<< So lets say Frank gives $100 of the $200 he has to spend this Christmas (%50), and Bill gives $1 million. Lets estimate (according to the latest, he is estimated at $41 billion net) Bill is worth - without stock - only $1 billion, so thats %.1 >>



Yes, and such a man that would give $100 if all he had was $200 WOULD be a great man... no doubt about it.

But you're assuming Bill makes $40 billion every yr. That's his total worth... his real income each yr is probably closer to 2-3 billion (inflated stocks are just that, inflated stocks.. thye might be worth $120/stock right now, but if he was to sell all that, he won't get $120/stock... as he floods the market with his shares, the value would go down)... so he's giving 1/3 of his income to charity. Would you give 1/3 of your income to charity? I would agree, anybody that gives 1/3 of their income to charity is should be revered.



<< 2) Who was more charitable?
That is where the guy who gave half of what he had is the answer. Unless all you can see is dollar signs... >>



That's arbitrary. And i don't see in dollars... i can see that value of a dollar. You giving 3 cents, though WORTHY in your eyes, does nothing. Him giving 1billion, though not worthy in your eyes, does more.




<< Halfway to Mother Theresa?! Halfway? He isn't even on the same scale. She gave her entire life - every waking moment, to personally working tirelessly for the poorest of the poor. She won a Noble Peace prize and inspired millions - Princesses, presidents, and people from every walk of life. >>



It's not fair to judge Bill Gates with Mother Theresa, because you don't know what he has plans for his life. What if he decides to retire early, and live meagerly with just a few million, and with the rest of his future accumulated wealth of $500billion dollars (fictional right now), he donates it to the world, and ends world hunger.

You don't know how his life is going to turn out yet, and what he'll do.

What we should be doing is comparing Bill Gates to YOU. The one who said his 1billion is equal to your 3cents.

 

[Looney]

<< And you think he did that for charity? >>



No he didn't... but he didn't have to give a single penny to charity either.

Is your life revolved around that of charity? Why should he be thought of any less since his wasn't.

 

[vi edit]

Out of curiosity Moralpanic, if Larry Flint were to donate 1 billion dollars to charity, would you hold him in the same light as Bill Gates?

Seperate point - I really hate the people who donate money to charity...before finding out that it's tax deductable. Now, are you really that charitable if you turn right back around and then claim it?

As I said, it's the intentions behind the check, not the amount written on it.

 

[Looney]

<< Out of curiosity Moralpanic, if Larry Flint were to donate 1 billion dollars to charity, would you hold him in the same light as Bill Gates? >>



Yes I would. But I doubt Larry Flint would be as thoughtful in his charity. But why wouldn't he be? He took the money out of the pockets of horny men to give to hungry children.





<< Seperate point - I really hate the people who donate money to charity...before finding out that it's tax deductable. Now, are you really that charitable if you turn right back around and then claim it? >>



Do you really think it's possible to deduct 1billion dollars from your tax?

 

[Looney]

Oops, missed this post when i came back.



<< Moralpanic - I'm sorry you had a bad time at that charity, but if it angered you that the charity-givers had nice vans and such, why do you defend Bill driving god-knows-what kind of luxury car and living in his billion dollar home? >>




When did i defend Bill for driving his luxury cars? And he's quite conservative when it comes to his cars... god knows he could have a fleet. And he doesn't live in a billion dollar home... $80million, granted a lot, but he's got stuff to worry about that you and i don't... such as his daughter getting kidnapped and ransomed, or a derange moron that wants to bomb him because he's a technocrat. But are you saying he doesn't have the right spend his money any way he likes?




<< By mentioning that the charity folks at the salvation army kept back enough for nice new vans, you seem to ignore that Bill kept many times more money than he could ever spend, let alone enough for a new van! >>



What are you trying to say? That doesn't have a right to keep his money, and that he should give all he can and keep just the minimum amount?

And he's made it in his will that he's only giving his daughter 4-6million, and everything else is going to charity. That's quite the sum... according to your prior logic, it's like you giving your kids 1penny when you die, and giving everything else to charity.



<< Maybe because they had a lot of people needing juice, and only so much juice to go around. Or maybe they were on a power trip? There are bad-natured people everywhere, but these people were helping. >>



Amount of juice was not the problem... SA is a very wealthy and connected organization. Yes, they were on a powertrip, and that's my point, just because somebody is doing charity, doesn't mean they're nice.

 

[Theslowone]

But what can change the nature of a man?

 

[Looney]

What IS the nature of man?

 

[Vaneleus]

ah....Theslowone is getting deep here.....