Legal entitlement is obviously the end measure in a legal context. But is there a legal context for greed? As I said before, taking more than you are entitled to is theft (or something else in a civil context perhaps). But where does the concept of greed enter the legal context?
Do you have an opinion on the moisture of liquid H20? What about Primates defecating in treelands?
I think you mean members of the family Ursidae, rather than primates.
Ursids, primates – woods, forests. It’s all the same shit. 
No, I wouldn’t call him greedy based on this example. I’d call him uncaring, heartless, and selfish. But – again, in my own opinion only – greedy has a nuance that doesn’t fit this.
Look, English is a rich language. We are not limited to GOOD, PLUSGOOD, and DOUBLEPLUSGOOD as laudatory adjectives. We understand there is a place to use “stubborn,” as opposed to intransigent, muleish, or pigheaded.
Greedy is simply not the best word to use, here. i accept that this is my own opinion, and may not be shared by others.
But we’re not commenting on actions taken at a social gathering, are we? We’re AT a social gathering, yes, but discussing actions taken in a more formalized context by someone who’s not here.
How does this not fit?
Oh, this is rich. This whole thing got started because in that other thread, Bricker says:
Which sure did look like Bricker was defending John Schnatter. But no, now we find out that Bricker actually thinks he’s:
Just not greedy. Ends up, he’s just quibbling over semantics this whole time!
Have any citation that he is a Catholic? This would really intrigue me if you can find a post saying that he is. Thank you in advance. 
OK, it sounds like I and others who responded similarly misunderstood what you were trying to say. But I think the misunderstood version more accurately reflects my view of the proper context of this type of argument. Regardless of the fact that his activities took place outside the social realm, we are arguing their merits wityin a social realm. Whether or not his actions were strictly illegal, his actions have made many of us on this message board, and I would contend elsewhere form a very negative opinion of the man. Further we feel that our opinion is entirely justified, and that those who do not find his behavior appalling to be incorrect according to our view of morality.
This seems to be a recurring theme in the Bricker debates. One can be an asshole without having done anything illegal, and it is perfectly all right to rise up and call someone on their assholenss even if their assholeness didn’t occur in a social situation. I would argue in fact that that is the entire point of the Pit. Otherwise we may just a well be robots and view all actions as equally OK until a court tells us otherwise.
Heck I’ll even applaud you standing up and saying that you think that abortion doctors are immoral murderers despite the results of Roe v Wade. I’ll disagree with you completely and try to convince you otherwise but I won’t just sit back and say “the courts decided it so you can’t have your view”.
Secular arguments against same-sex marriage - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board ------ I’d like to direct you here to show you that really, your morals don’t matter. As long as what he’s doing isn’t illegal, it doesn’t matter if you think he’s greedy or not. Morals aren’t solid ground for argument.
(Check near the end of that discussion for my reference of many people agreeing that morals just don’t matter at all)
He’s brought it up in many threads. See post 5:
from what I understand there’s no question of lack of charity from this guy, nobody’s bashing him because he’s not donating (if he left prices alone completely we may be arguing about that) but the fact that he’s hiking up the prices is agreeably in the opposite direction of charity, not stealing but a good example of what Tripolar said is within the realm of entitlement (the bad end, the good end being charity).
Really? I am shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.
BTW if decency REQUIRES charity, then not being charitable automatically puts you a step BELOW decent? yet it doesn’t? because you don’t want him to land on the word greedy? can you give us the word in between decent and greedy that could define him without giving us the win and without losing this debate yourself?
But this is exactly the distinction I am making.
In the Gay marriage thread the underlying argument was support for the notion that gay marriage should be illegal, and so the arguments had to be less on a fuzzy feeling of what is right an wrong and more on the strict utilitarian and legal view.
If we were arguing that what Papa John does should be illegal, because we find it morally repugnant even though it doesn’t hurt anybody, then you would be correct that we will need to justify our arguments beyond our view of morality. But were arguing just on a social level so we don’t require the same level of evidence
Similarly if someone says that they find personally find Homosexuality to be wrong, but shouldn’t be illegal. It would be harder to say that they can’t use their morals to make this judgement.
OK, to put it another way do you view his actions as despicable enough that they are pit-worthy, regardless of what actual adjective you chose to use? If so why bother defending him over a slight disagreement of word choice.
I disagree. I think we can all agree that hard work and good business decisions should give a person some of the better things in life- a couple of nice cars, a large house, vacations, etc.
In now way do I think Warren Buffett who has a Towncar (instead of my Volvo), or his vacation home in Laguna Beach ( instead of my rental house in a rather sketchy area) or even his private jet (since he does use it a lot for business travel) instead of me flying coach. But he clearly has worked longer and smarter than Schnatter, who lives so high off the hog that “greedy” seems to fit perfectly. What’s also a issue is that Schnatter has bullied his employees about the rather tiny cost of healthcare, and lied about it.
Buffett is also known for treating his employees fairly and for his philanthropy.
I apologize for lowering the threshold of discourse in Great Debates by suggesting that opinions should be discussed. Clearly, this must be stopped.
And while doing so, coined the phrase “it’s my way, or the highway.” True fact.
To be fair, a key aspect of this thread is whether the proposition is objectively true or “just an opinion”.