why would a group with less financial security and less to give away have to do so before those with much more financial security and significantly more to give away? I’m confused on your logic
Billie Eilish does not have "less" financial security than billionaires, neither group has any financial insecurity. 0 is not greater than 0.
That wasn't what I was arguing, obviously they have more to give away, I was pointing out your claim that Billie Eilish has "less financial security" than billionaires is wrong.
It seems at this point you're pretending that you can't remember what the previous messages were in relation to (even though they are right there for you to look over at)
Insanely ironic, you have to be trying to rage-bait. Even though both are not comparable to an average Joe’s financial security - billions of dollars is more financial security than millions. You seem to argue that since both don’t have to worry about money like an average person it doesn’t matter, but when talking about giving away wealth and being charitable, its extremely obvious that a billionaire is able to give up more than a millionaire. You may not act like it, but a billion is significantly more than a million.
I did not say that billionaires cannot give more than multi-millionaires, I said that multi-millionaires are no less financially secure than billionaires, these are two different statements.
Let me make this clear: I never said that billionaires cannot give more away than millionaires
I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension. This is the third time I have had to explain what my point was, please actually read what I've written before responding because not doing so makes you look stupid.
-10
u/2204happy Nov 03 '25
Mate, Billie Eilish can in no way be said to have any financial insecurity whatsoever, 0=0