If you’re so rich, why aren’t you smart? -- Traditional reply. (I’m not sure it makes much sense, but then neither does the original question.)
To which, of course, the reply is that they don’t need to be, and so why waste the effort? That is, they are smart, on the level that’s important.
Oddly, this reply works equally well for the original quote.
Exactly.… to me this is always a sign of a strawman argument..
Or rather, a fully general counterargument.
Or maybe both statements are equally ridiculous.
If the only thing that’s important is money, yes.
Or if money were fungible.
If you’re so rich, why aren’t you smart? -- Traditional reply. (I’m not sure it makes much sense, but then neither does the original question.)
To which, of course, the reply is that they don’t need to be, and so why waste the effort? That is, they are smart, on the level that’s important.
Oddly, this reply works equally well for the original quote.
Exactly.… to me this is always a sign of a strawman argument..
Or rather, a fully general counterargument.
Or maybe both statements are equally ridiculous.
If the only thing that’s important is money, yes.
Or if money were fungible.