Influential Billionaire David Koch Dies

[Djuph]

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics ... index.html

The guy did support LGBT rights. Even if someone is an Ally you get to piss on his grave if he disagrees with your economic policy.

For a group that needs more allies you seem to expect your allies to give up everything for nothing in return.

Economic, guns, trade, you name it we have to give it up just for the badge of being your ally. No thanks.

If Koch was an ally of gay people, he sure managed to keep it a secret. His GOP proteges have never failed to attack the LGBT minorities.

[Ifreann]

I'm sure the LGBT community will be distraught to have lost your support.

---

Poe's Law states that it is impossible to parody extreme views without that parody being mistaken for sincerely held beliefs.

---

So what kind of garbage human being thinks that the businessmen who worked with Hitler are worthy of respect? How devoid of basic human empathy does one have to be to consider it prestigious to profit from working with a fascist regime?

If financial success means supporting fascist dictators without regard for the fact that they are fascist dictators then financial success is a sign of moral failure. Millions and millions of Americans supported their families without supplying the fucking Nazis. Fred Koch didn't need to support a brutal tyrant, he had no duty to do so. He chose to do so. That makes him scum.

It's not scum to be pragmatic and realise you can't overthrow Hitler and you're powerless to get rid of the Nazis, refusing to trade in the Reich market means hurting your wife's standard of living

Not really.

and the future inheritance of your children,

They'll be fine.

you're punishing your family for geo-political events outside their control.

No you aren't.

Wanting more money does not justify aiding the Nazis, nor doing any other plainly evil thing.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Can’t say that I’ll miss him.

If I sell a gun to a guy who says he's gonna kill his mom, I'm technically also responsible for her death. Fred Koch was a dick for doing business with the Reich

A lot of american companies did business with Nazi-Germany.

And they were all wrong for doing so as well. A lot of people doing a bad thing doesn’t somehow make that thing okay.

[Greed and Death]

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics ... index.html

The guy did support LGBT rights. Even if someone is an Ally you get to piss on his grave if he disagrees with your economic policy.

For a group that needs more allies you seem to expect your allies to give up everything for nothing in return.

Economic, guns, trade, you name it we have to give it up just for the badge of being your ally. No thanks.

If Koch was an ally of gay people, he sure managed to keep it a secret. His GOP proteges have never failed to attack the LGBT minorities.

The article I linked explained he openly supported their rights but donated to GOP whom he disagreed with because he felt the economic freedom issues were greater.

[Purgatio]

It's not scum to be pragmatic and realise you can't overthrow Hitler and you're powerless to get rid of the Nazis, refusing to trade in the Reich market means hurting your wife's standard of living

Not really.

and the future inheritance of your children,

They'll be fine.

you're punishing your family for geo-political events outside their control.

No you aren't.

Wanting more money does not justify aiding the Nazis, nor doing any other plainly evil thing.

It's not about wanting more money, it's about recognising you can't overthrow the Nazis and it is morally wrong to lower your family's standard of living and reduce your children's future inheritance because you want to make a point about how 'morally virtuous' you are without thinking about the wider third party consequences of your choice.

[Ifreann]

Not really.

They'll be fine.

No you aren't.

Wanting more money does not justify aiding the Nazis, nor doing any other plainly evil thing.

It's not about wanting more money, it's about recognising you can't overthrow the Nazis and it is morally wrong to lower your family's standard of living and reduce your children's future inheritance because you want to make a point about how 'morally virtuous' you are without thinking about the wider third party consequences of your choice.

It is not morally wrong to refuse to work with Nazis, even if that means you just stay rich instead of getting richer, and I am blown away by the fact that you are not only praising people who profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things, but asserting a moral duty to profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things. You're telling us that it is morally wrong to be neutral if you could make more money from being evil. What the fuck?

[Djuph]

The article I linked explained he openly supported their rights but donated to GOP whom he disagreed with because he felt the economic freedom issues were greater.

Hello, I support your equal rights, but only if they don't cost me any money, nor any money I could potentially make from getting homophobes elected. But please, watch me make a charitable contribution to a ballet class. Now praise me for my philanthropy, you ungrateful sod!

[Purgatio]

It's not about wanting more money, it's about recognising you can't overthrow the Nazis and it is morally wrong to lower your family's standard of living and reduce your children's future inheritance because you want to make a point about how 'morally virtuous' you are without thinking about the wider third party consequences of your choice.

It is not morally wrong to refuse to work with Nazis, even if that means you just stay rich instead of getting richer, and I am blown away by the fact that you are not only praising people who profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things, but asserting a moral duty to profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things. You're telling us that it is morally wrong to be neutral if you could make more money from being evil. What the fuck?

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

[Kowani]

It is not morally wrong to refuse to work with Nazis, even if that means you just stay rich instead of getting richer, and I am blown away by the fact that you are not only praising people who profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things, but asserting a moral duty to profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things. You're telling us that it is morally wrong to be neutral if you could make more money from being evil. What the fuck?

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

The Koch family would’ve been just fine without that Nazi money. It’s called a diversified portfolio.

[Djuph]

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

I thought libertarians are supposed to be opposed to welfare? What a hypocrite that man has been, according to you!

[Purgatio]

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

I thought libertarians are supposed to be opposed to welfare? What a hypocrite that man has been, according to you!

Are you pretending not to understand that welfare is a homonym and can have different meanings? I was using the word 'welfare' to mean 'standard of living and financial security' not 'social welfare handouts'

[Purgatio]

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

The Koch family would’ve been just fine without that Nazi money. It’s called a diversified portfolio.

And Fred Koch chose to diversify it further by including assets in one of the world's largest economies at the time.

[Ifreann]

It is not morally wrong to refuse to work with Nazis, even if that means you just stay rich instead of getting richer, and I am blown away by the fact that you are not only praising people who profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things, but asserting a moral duty to profit from aiding evil people in doing evil things. You're telling us that it is morally wrong to be neutral if you could make more money from being evil. What the fuck?

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

Fred Koch refusing to work with the Nazis wouldn't have bankrupted his family and put them on the streets. They would not have suffered if he had had the moral fortitude to put aside greed.

[Torrocca]

Koch was an absolute piece of shit, and his brother is still an absolute piece of shit. Death generally isn't something to celebrate, though, so I won't say anything in that regard. However, Koch's unabashed shittiness and ruinous effects on our planet and countless numbers of people incurred by him, his brother, their father, and whoever else in their family that has been involved in this shit absolutely needs to be brought up simply because of the sheer amount of horrendous bullshit they and others like them brought down and are still bringing down onto people. It's fucking ludicrous to expect people to be remorseful for the family in the face of the unmeasurable harm that was brought onto this world by how Koch used his wealth in his lifetime. There should be nothing less than shame and fury that this guy spent his life actively worsening the lives of others, rather than use what he had for the betterment of society.

[Djuph]

I thought libertarians are supposed to be opposed to welfare? What a hypocrite that man has been, according to you!

Are you pretending not to understand that welfare is a homonym and can have different meanings? I was using the word 'welfare' to mean 'standard of living and financial security' not 'social welfare handouts'

It's more than a homonym. It's "I've got mine, I don't care if you have yours". It's selfishness of a most disgusting kind.

[Grays Harbor]

David Koch's father Fred Koch managed to build a huge and successful business empire and the Koch brothers have managed that empire well, to me that's the sign of a successful and prestigious family worthy of respect in society

Fred Koch built an oil refinery for Hitler.

These other companies did business in Germany up until late 1941. Should they too be punished for not complying with standards set nearly 80 years after the fact?

Coca-Cola
IBM
Associated Press
Kodak
Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon)
Union Carbide
General Motors
Ford
General Electric
Gillette
ITT
Singer
Du Pont
Westinghouse
Texaco

[Purgatio]

Are you pretending not to understand that welfare is a homonym and can have different meanings? I was using the word 'welfare' to mean 'standard of living and financial security' not 'social welfare handouts'

It's more than a homonym. It's "I've got mine, I don't care if you have yours". It's selfishness of a most disgusting kind.

Its still not hypocrisy which was your accusation

[Purgatio]

I've already explained why, when you have a wife and children counting on you to provide for them both now and for their future financial security after you've passed away, you can't manage your financial affairs without their welfare interests in mind, and you are talking about compromising their welfare to make a 'moral stance' that won't achieve anything to overthrow the Nazis and is intended only to make you feel better about yourself and pat yourself on the back.

Fred Koch refusing to work with the Nazis wouldn't have bankrupted his family and put them on the streets. They would not have suffered if he had had the moral fortitude to put aside greed.

Thats the standard now? Bankruptcy? The main issue is why should your children suffer the harm and injury of a reduced inheritance because of political events in a distant country that their father couldn't even control anyway?

[Farnhamia]

Good riddance, hopefully his brother follows him soon.

I hope he and his brother are reunited soon.

guy spent his fortune imo destroying and seeding humanitys downfall with destructive ideas

ding dong the witch is dead

I wonder how many people want to dance on his grave.

Hallelujah the Lord giveth and taketh.

Yeah I know this sounds mean but I am a heavy democratic socialist and these ultra conservative types really run foul in my book.

So what he had a charity and this and that. He has done so many horrible things that it makes his few charities look like cover up cream on the face of a 17 year old with extreme acne. The pimples are still there, the cream just covers them up and if you get within 10 feet you see everything.

Koch Industries is one of those extremely destructive companies that has no respect for the environment.

I want to see them both off this planet and see their companies downfall.

It’s time the Koch name fell!

Calling him a ghoul is a bit uncalled for, tbh. Think of the family in a time like this.

I'm sure his family are very upset to have lost their beloved ghoul.

*** Warned for trolling (advocating or gloating over death) ***

[Torrocca]

Fred Koch built an oil refinery for Hitler.

These other companies did business in Germany up until late 1941. Should they too be punished for not complying with standards set nearly 80 years after the fact?

Coca-Cola
IBM
Associated Press
Kodak
Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon)
Union Carbide
General Motors
Ford
General Electric
Gillette
ITT
Singer
Du Pont
Westinghouse
Texaco

Yes. They've pretty much all got a lot of other sketchy shit under their collective belts anyhow, might as well get them for that too, in fact.

[Ifreann]

Fred Koch built an oil refinery for Hitler.

These other companies did business in Germany up until late 1941. Should they too be punished for not complying with standards set nearly 80 years after the fact?

Who said anything about punishment? I'm just pointing out that the dude isn't so deserving of respect as Purgatio seems to think.

But since you bring it up, sure, I'd be down for punishing all those companies you listed.

---

Fred Koch refusing to work with the Nazis wouldn't have bankrupted his family and put them on the streets. They would not have suffered if he had had the moral fortitude to put aside greed.

Thats the standard now? Bankruptcy?

Pretty much. Falling into destitution is actually harmful, absent a strong social safety net. Being slightly less rich than one could have been, but still very rich, is not any kind of harm.

The main issue is why should your children suffer the harm and injury of a reduced inheritance because of political events in a distant country that their father couldn't even control anyway?

To which I object that they would not have suffered in any meaningful sense. We're not talking about someone who had no real choice but to work for the Nazis, we're talking about an already rich oil man. He absolutely could have chosen not to do business with the Third Reich, therefore he bears the full moral responsibility of that choice.

[Purgatio]

These other companies did business in Germany up until late 1941. Should they too be punished for not complying with standards set nearly 80 years after the fact?

Who said anything about punishment? I'm just pointing out that the dude isn't so deserving of respect as Purgatio seems to think.

But since you bring it up, sure, I'd be down for punishing all those companies you listed.

---

Thats the standard now? Bankruptcy?

Pretty much. Falling into destitution is actually harmful, absent a strong social safety net. Being slightly less rich than one could have been, but still very rich, is not any kind of harm.

The main issue is why should your children suffer the harm and injury of a reduced inheritance because of political events in a distant country that their father couldn't even control anyway?

To which I object that they would not have suffered in any meaningful sense. We're not talking about someone who had no real choice but to work for the Nazis, we're talking about an already rich oil man. He absolutely could have chosen not to do business with the Third Reich, therefore he bears the full moral responsibility of that choice.

How on Earth is a reduced inherited portfolio that has been injured in a tangible, pecuniary sense not suffering in a meaningful sense?

[Torrocca]

Who said anything about punishment? I'm just pointing out that the dude isn't so deserving of respect as Purgatio seems to think.

But since you bring it up, sure, I'd be down for punishing all those companies you listed.

---

Pretty much. Falling into destitution is actually harmful, absent a strong social safety net. Being slightly less rich than one could have been, but still very rich, is not any kind of harm.

To which I object that they would not have suffered in any meaningful sense. We're not talking about someone who had no real choice but to work for the Nazis, we're talking about an already rich oil man. He absolutely could have chosen not to do business with the Third Reich, therefore he bears the full moral responsibility of that choice.

How on Earth is a reduced inherited portfolio that has been injured in a tangible, pecuniary sense not suffering in a meaningful sense?

How is a billionaire missing out on a couple million dollars that they could've received from Nazi Germany for aiding the Nazi regime considered suffering by any metric?

[Farnhamia]

I think we're done here. The thread seems to be dissolving into thinly disguised sniping and gloating.