You posted a one-line dismissive and condescending put-down yourself, which basically added nothing to the conversation.

Don't hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself.

I was commenting on the notion that ambition is in some way prima facie bad.

In response, I was told that my understanding of philosophy is like that of a 20 year old and that I am intellectually stuck in the 1800s (in a comment comically premised on the moral philosophy of the ancient greeks).

I do not see my comment as a put-down at all and it certainly is not anything like that response. Nonetheless, I will take your feedback into account - clearly it came across to multiple people as condescending.

> I was commenting on the notion that ambition is in some way prima facie bad.

You were in fact commenting on the strawman you constructed that the op “notion[ed] that ambition is in some way prima facie bad”.

The op mocked, and in a way more reserved way than I would, the type of “ambition” that this unethical sociopath and his supporters endorse.

If this unethical sociopath was ambitiously pursuing universal healthcare then he’d get my support.

Instead he has found his place by stealing from the impoverished, world coin, and now creatives, OpenAI.

That to me is an abhorrent form of ambition.

It's a condescending angle because you were condescending at first, even more when attempting to use 1800s philosophy to argument for ambition based on very fossilised philosophy. I like Nietzsche, I wouldn't use Nietzsche as the sole basis of morality argumentation since there are much more updated thinkers considering our moral standards in the contemporary world.

Receding from the discussion doesn't take that away, you were being reductionist in your argumentation, I just pointed out you were stuck in the 1800s.

Since then I read your profile and saw you are actually a consequentialist, I don't want anything to do with Effective Altruism true believers so thanks for not engaging further.