A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Uh, Bill Gates is the exemplar for an ethical atheist?????
Half a billion dollars spent immunizing 3rd world countries against preventable disease is the work of an evil man?
The cynics would argue that it is out of a self-regarding attrition that he does these things.
I am not one of them.
For all of the shite chucked at his products (much of it unfounded) he really has done a good job with his charity work.
“Half a billion dollars spent …”
Money made from running Microsoft, which is a convicted monopoly.
Tens of billions donated to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, convincing other super-rich people to donate literally hundreds of billions more, being the source of both drive and funding to aggressively treat, medicate and educate AIDS sufferers in Africa. I could care less where that money’s come from, in all honesty. You can’t argue that he isn’t doing a massive amount of good with it.
Actually you can argue that, but if you don’t care where the money’s coming from, you aren’t really familiar with the concept of ethics. Microsoft made their money cribbing from other products, violating patents, creating their own anti-competitive patents and swallowing or destroying any competitor that stood in their way. They have been fined hundreds of millions of Euros for egregious violations of monopoly laws. Gates is not the antichrist but he’s an ordinary businessman (he invested heavily in the firms producing the vaccines he’s trying to convince countries and billionaires to buy), and far from the poster-child of secular ethics.
I hate MS and everything it stands for, but I will concede that Uncle Bill put some real effort. Now, he probably was not incredibly effective, but we can respect the genuine effort.
If you don’t think it was incredibly effect, two questions – why and what would you have done differently?
I don’t think they researched well what they were doing. It didn’t really work.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think he did a lot of good effectively.
This chart seems to be suggesting a negative correlation between mustaches and ethics.
And a positive one between glasses and good.
And a worrying one for hats, as well.
See which side the Americans are.
well, duh :)
Hmm…trying to figure out which of these cohorts I fit in with best. I think I’ll just ‘abstain’, thank you very much, ha.
NO LABELS! (John 9:29) ha
Let there be…Light! [shed on (y)our true identities/Origin]
Why did you put the word “abstain” in quotes there? I don’t understand you’re grammatical choices. Why can’t you type like a normal person?
“You’re”??? This sentence makes no sense at all, grammatically: “I do not understand you are grammatical choices.” Perhaps you meant to use the possessive, your?
Rip his head off for a typo. Just RIIIIIIIIIP it off.
I don’t understand you’re grammatical choices.
This sentence makes no sense at all, grammatically…
Perhaps that was the idea.
Ahahaaaaaaa, I was sleepy. :)
Oh look, a punctuation Nazi on the internet. There’s an original, novel, entertaining and endearing feature.
To be fair, he did make the error in the very sentence criticizing John’s grammar choices. It was at least a little ironic.
Ah – I missed that part!
How about take 2: how does putting quotes around the word “abstain” differ from saying “abstain” without quotes? I think I’ll just ‘abstain’. I think I’ll just abstain.
Why does he do this all the time? Does he not abstain from putting himself in a category, or or or WHAT? It’s annoying. The you’re/your mistake is obviously a typo; people who don’t know the difference use “your” in every case, and even people who know the difference might make a typo. Putting quotes around words in the middle of a sentence: there’s a correct and incorrect usage, like you are not sure “which” words to quote, “you” are just being an ignorant ass; it’s not a “writing style,” and does “merit” “criticism,” when the meaning isn’t clear and we’re in a discussion, where the “user” insists on being “an” ass, and can’t seem to “construct” a “comment” where words mean what we all think they mean and don’t need to be set inside quote marks.
I don’t know, Mahou, perhaps because I’m not, normal that is, ha. All the best, sir!
Actually, Mahou, upon further review, yesterday I only used singular ‘quote’ marks, not double “quote(s)” like you used today. Of course this is a grievous and unforgivable error on my part and for which there is no possible repentance. My grammar is certainly doomed beyond all hope.
In some parts of the world (mostly third world, Latin-flavored nations, as I understand it) they are permitted (on Mondays only) an exception to this hard and fast grammar rule which they call the ‘Monday One Mark’ rule but its Tuesday now, Two’sday, so two marks are definitely required today (see Mark 1:2 for scriptural support here). Fortunately, this only applies to those living on federally subsidized, native American Indian reservations so I think, just maybe, we’re safe….
And that made about as much sense as you fussing at me for typing the word ‘abstain’ in quotation marks, ha. Or was that ‘quotation mark’? (one mark, not two, oh darn…its still Tuesday, right? :).
Mercy, Mahou, I beg your forgiveness, please, sir? :……….)
I can’t speak for Mahou, but I’ll forgive you if you promise to stop using scare quotes in cases where you are, in fact, wanting the quoted word to be read in its normal literal or conventional sense.
What the hell is a latin-flavored country?
Ha – John C has a sense of humour. It’s at least as weird as his sense of serious, but it’s a start.
Keep smiling John :-)
I’d remove that “always” in the last sentence outright.
It would be surprising if there were no correlation.
Positive or negative, that’s another question.
Good plus black = murdered? Anyhoo, I think this makes a valid point, even though we could spend hours debating the “goodness” of the people depicted, and the differences between good and ethical.
Follow Patheos on