No, but I'm sure the Criminal Code of America (Forbes Mag.) and Mexico (El Chapo) has a rule regarding narcotic trafficking.

I could very much say your counter example was not a very good one either.

is this sarcasm? the difference is if one guy leaves his house he might get asked for his autograph and the other might go to jail. that is a big difference.

i am pretty sure if u committed a white collar crime, u wont expect to go outside and get asked for autograph

Depends of what kind of "white collar" crimes.

Are we talking about corporations that push the letter of the law to maximize tax returns or write offs?

Or are we saying that most Fortune 500 companies are all scammers of Enron proportions?

And this has to do with publishing a name on a list of the world's billionaires how?

I didn't provide a counter example. I provided a response to your example.

I can't believe you two can't get what I've said several times now.

The list is inclusive of all of the world's billionaires.

Is that guy a billionaire?

If the answer is yes, THAT IS ALL THE QUALIFICATION that's required.

There are no IFs or BUTs to being included or excluded from the list.

being suspected of committing a white collar crime and being known as a huge drug lord are also to very large and different distinctions.

And why not when the legitimacy of the wealth is in question?

..and at the same time, they shouldn't be.

Don't kid yourself. The crimes of a white collar are very similar if not equivalent to the crimes a drug lord carries out.

Sure people don't die, but if you think about it, I'm sure a lot of people would rather die than to lose their job @ 40 or 50 and have no future prospects with 4 kids and a wife at home that still depend on them.

Oh, who's responsible for this "war on crime/drugs"...oh I dunno..the GOVERNMENT. Durrrr.


Edit: I see your play on words there. Suspect vs known. What's the difference? Time, really. If everyone knows that he's a drug lord..etc all that junk, why doesn't someone just sweep in and take him down?

One could argue, if anything, 'Drug Kingpins' have earned more of a right to ownership, because they can count law enforcement, corruption, and the constant possibility of death as obstacles. Do you really think being in that kind of business, on that kind of scale, is just a matter of buying and selling and making easy money? Wakey wakey, that is not how it works

I don't see how Forbes has any way of confirming numbers with business's that don't file taxes, and have no way of officially declaring earnings though... it loses all credibility by including those types of businesses imo. Probably just an advertising gimmick, I mean we are all talking about Forbes now.

Yeah, one ruins the lives of thousands of innocent people.

The other is the drug lord

:haha:

You want a counter example?

Here's mine.

What if we were talking about a list of the world's tallest men ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_woman#Tallest_male

Many of these men had glandular disorders that increased their growth hormones. Should they be excluded from the list because they didn't grow to their height normally?

Using the Bill Gates example a little more, at one point there was the possibility that he could lose his money if he had gotten nailed by the anti-trust suits. And yet they listed him anyways, because he was in possession of the money at the time.

Because this list isn't called "The list of the world's billionaires with money made legitimately".

You're just arguing pure semantics now. Making the list is all about recognition.

But the heart of Gate's industry is still computers and was guilty of trying to monopolize the industry. A guy who's worst capability is buying out the opposing company or shares, termination of employment or lawsuits.

Drug Kingpins however :rolleyes:

If that industry does deserve recognition, then I'll just leave it that I'm glad my criterias differ than the rest

You're saying his counter example was irrelevant, and you retort by comparing human growth (which isn't really under anyones control) with peoples' means of attaining wealth (completely under peoples control)?

This is why I stopped responding.

Yes, it's business ACTIVITIES, but can you call it a legitimate business? I don't really care for how risky it is, or what adversities he had to overcome to become the biggest drug lord in the region. What I do care for, however, is that when I pick up a Forbes, I know that I'm reading content that is legitimate to what a "business magazine" is supposed to offer -- not advertising drug pushing would probably be a start. And yes, I think Forbes has an obligation to be publishing LEGITIMATE business considering what kind of print they are supposed to be.

Just tell me why HA's and I.S. are not on the business section of our LOCAL newspaper if you're talking about big time/small time. The point is, they won't be, because it's not a legitimate business. Same goes for any other print that considers itself to be trustworthy.

yes

Not it isn't. You might get recognition from being on it, but the list is all about FACT.

It's a FACT that the guy is a billionaire.

That's all there is to it.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Why is it important whether it's under someone's control or not? Yes, that could be a difference between my example and the billionaire list, but you haven't explained why that is a factor.

So what if the example was the world's largest biceps? I bet some on the list would have used steroids to achieve it.

Would they be excluded from that list?

This is a list of people who are rich as fuck, this man is in fact rich as fuck. It's as simple as that.

Here, you'd be reading about a list of the world's billionaires.

So you would rather them publish incomplete lists that omit certain elements for arbitrary reasons?

Nowhere in the article was there any mention of drugs or anything to do with that guy except for his NAME. You call that advertising drug pushing? That's quite the stretch there. Can you tell me that you know the full business activities of each and every single one of the hundreds of people listed there? No? Then maybe you should research them to find out if there should be any other names that should be excluded. Why is this person in particular such a concern for you?

They have an obligation to publish unbiased factual information. Making a list of the world's billionaires and excluding an individual because of HOW he made his money would put the magazine into serious doubts of credibility.

So here's another counter example.

What if there was a list of the world's longest bridges, and one of the bridges was built using drug money?

Should that bridge be disqualified from such a list?

EXACTLY.

How fucking hard is it to understand this?

If it was published by a bodybuilding magazine, yes, it would be.

Backfire much?

What's quite a stretch is how you're justifying how they're publishing "facts", denying the fact that they're publicizing a drug pusher, and the fact that you deny that you're arguing semantics.

Things aren't black and white; you guys aren't even looking at WHO posted the "facts" as it's pretty important if you're going to make a point that it's "correct".

It's okay, you both are obviously not going to start taking to account other factors in this debate so there's not really any point to continue. As you were, ladies.

:thumbsup: