You are attacking me instead of the argument. Your logic is incorrect. Here are your questions:
>Do you feel compelled to spend your excess money in a way that's most beneficial for humanity? If not, why should Bezos?
Let's apply the same logic to another issue:
"You say doing drugs is bad for you yet you do drugs. Why should I listen to you and not do drugs?"
It is a basic idea in logical reasoning that the messenger and the message are separate. An valid argument can and should stand on its own regardless of who and how it is delivered. The "drugs are bad for you" argument is equally valid if delivered by a Nobel Prize winning PhD in Biology or a homeless high-school drop-out bum with only one tooth.
So saying "Well, if you don't do it why should he not do it?" just doesn't address whether or not the original premise and argument is valid or not, even if the messenger is a deranged lunatic.
To repeat myself, what I have said in many words is that it is my moral judgement that the uber-rich ought to get behind projects with far more significant and measurable social benefits than lifting junk from the bottom of the ocean.
I further put-up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a role model.
I also pointed out that we have FULLY WORKING versions of these very engines, at least one of which was test fired a couple of months ago:
That's quite a rant. I have to wonder just how confident you are in the ideas you're espousing if such simple questions trigger such a defensive reaction.
You say I'm attacking you rather than the argument. This is a strange statement! I'm not attacking anything. I just asked a couple of simple questions. Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether you think this obligation extends to everybody or just the wealthy, and if the latter, why. But you're far too busy complaining about being persecuted to actually explain your position, apparently.
You are attacking me instead of the argument. Your logic is incorrect. Here are your questions:
>Do you feel compelled to spend your excess money in a way that's most beneficial for humanity? If not, why should Bezos?
Let's apply the same logic to another issue:
"You say doing drugs is bad for you yet you do drugs. Why should I listen to you and not do drugs?"
It is a basic idea in logical reasoning that the messenger and the message are separate. An valid argument can and should stand on its own regardless of who and how it is delivered. The "drugs are bad for you" argument is equally valid if delivered by a Nobel Prize winning PhD in Biology or a homeless high-school drop-out bum with only one tooth.
So saying "Well, if you don't do it why should he not do it?" just doesn't address whether or not the original premise and argument is valid or not, even if the messenger is a deranged lunatic.
To repeat myself, what I have said in many words is that it is my moral judgement that the uber-rich ought to get behind projects with far more significant and measurable social benefits than lifting junk from the bottom of the ocean.
I further put-up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a role model.
I also pointed out that we have FULLY WORKING versions of these very engines, at least one of which was test fired a couple of months ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_test.html
And, of course, we have a number of them on static display at various locations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1
So, yeah, from my vantage point, it looks like a waste of money.
Is he entitled to do it? Absolutely. Without a doubt.
Am I still entitled to my opinion? Yup.
Are you entitled to a diametrically opposed opinion? Certainly.
See, it all works out in the end.