>>81880202
>What even is this argument.
It's a "no true copy paste error" fallacy, in its most beautiful form. Claiming that a part of the copying and pasting process, such as copying and pasting the right thing, is not a part of 'true copying and pasting that is apparently stroking the keys only' is an appeal to purity. Retards always use such fallacious reasoning when they are wrong, due to their egoic need to be anything but . . .

>>81829778
>Personal greed isn't bad in itself, but trying to pass it as something else is grandiose entitlement and thus is fucking gay.
And where have I tried to pass it as something else? If I have made any claim here, then it is chiefly and foremost this: that the worker's decision on whether compensation is worth the risk and the investor's decision on whether the share in the business is worth the risk are both motivated in and informed by the same personal desire for financial improvement -- what you uncharitably refer to as more than personal "greed" in the case of the investor but not in the case of the worker. Is it more than greed to seek fair compensation for work performed? No. Then why would it be more to seek fair return for capital provided?

>There's no discussion potential here.
Certainly not with you. I could smell your poor opinions from out in the catalogue

>>81770666
Trips don't lie, do they!