No. Oversimplifying or misrepresenting my specific statement, or generalizing it into an extreme or distorted version (suggesting “anything goes” or implying it condones something bad) to make it easier to attack would be a strawman fallacy
My statement means that specifically the pursuit of generosity justifies the means of free and fair markets to fund that generosity. …specifically.
Although free fair market capitalism is “justified” by many of it’s inherent benefits.
Believe me friend, I’m not trying to misrepresent. You are making broad statements and implying they are factual just because.
Do you have examples of this accumulation for only charitable purposes?
Also, still waiting for a time period of “true” capitalism.
To clarify… you want me to provide examples of charitable people or entities whose resources were acquired through capitalism in order to prove it is possible?
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “waiting for a time period” of true capitalism.
Yes.
A time period or place where “true” capitalism was able to function without any interference.
Hey buddy, you were strutting around claiming some kind of victory, then abandoned me cause you didn’t want to answer two simple questions.
Do another one of your cute “Debate Updates” I got a good laugh out of that.
It sounds like you’re saying free and fair market capitalism is a strong way to generate wealth that can fuel generosity, like philanthropy or social good, and that this outcome justifies using capitalism as a tool. I agree capitalism has benefits, like innovation and efficiency, but I’m curious, do you think the pursuit of generosity is the main justification for capitalism, or just one of many? Also, how do you define free and fair markets in this context, given issues like inequality or monopolies?
