Sure, skepticism is a useful tool. Understanding someone’s motivations and how their wealth influences their worldview is a natural approach for assessing their position.
However, the conclusion presented here–taken at face value–is reductive and ironically spells out what appears to be the author’s own bias.
I’m not one to go out on a limb to defend affluence, but is it not enough to draw conclusions (whatever they may be) based on veracity and sound logic? Or shall we all just categorically dismiss the opinions of the person further up from you on the economic ladder?
However, the conclusion presented here–taken at face value–is reductive and ironically spells out what appears to be the author’s own bias.
I’m not one to go out on a limb to defend affluence, but is it not enough to draw conclusions (whatever they may be) based on veracity and sound logic? Or shall we all just categorically dismiss the opinions of the person further up from you on the economic ladder?