You are taking my argument, the exception, and consistently throwing it in with the rule so that you have a mountable defense.
No I'm not, all the examples you're using are people who make a profit through exploitation, even the good ones do. If you want to make an example of someone who makes a large amount of money and then literally gives so much away to the point that they cannot be considered wealthy, that is 1) not how wealthy people in the real world actually behave and 2) irrelevant because then they wouldn't be wealthy anyway.
Your "exception" is also not even substantiated to exist in the real world. When asked for evidence, you said you did not have any, and asked us to use our "imagination." This says much about how much of your argument is based on actual real world circumstances.
It's easy to take out the key components to someones argument (below market rents
What does "Below market" mean in this example specifically? Are they still profitable, just below the market rate? Or are they actually taking a loss on the rent? If they are taking a loss, aren't they less a "landlord" or capitalist and more of a charitable organization? If they are still profitable, nothing about my argument changes: This individual produces a profit through exploitation. The fact that some portion of that profit goes to what you consider a "good cause" (not even getting into whether what you consider a "good cause" actually is such) does not change the fact of the exploitation used to obtain it. If I am a Southern plantation owner who owns hundreds of slaves and I donate 30%, 50%, even 90% of the profit I make to local charitable organizations, it does not change the fact that I am a slaveholder.
+ excess profits to good causes
"Excess profits" meaning what, exactly? Are you implying this hypothetical landlord only keeps the bare minimum he needs to live for himself, while donating the rest? I find that somewhat hard to believe. Does "excess profits" just mean he keeps enough profit to afford a typical bourgeois or petit-bourgeois standard of living? In the latter case, the person is living lavishly off of exploitation, the fact that they could live even more
lavishly if they were an even bigger piece of shit is not a point in their favor.
Also, charity is not even a "good cause" necessarily. Without getting into the problems of specific charities or typical administrative problems with corruption and such, alleviating social ills through charity is a smokescreen that allows people to say charity is the best solution, or at least an adequate solution, and that the huge social reforms needed to bring about a just society are not actually needed.
+ understanding that this act is a temporary treatment to some of the immediately hurting people while capitalism exists)
It is? Why? What are these people doing to bring about the end of capitalism? Nothing, they're perpetuating it.
"Donates the excess wealth + provides greatly discounted housing + Makes a reasonable/fair amount while doing so = worse than living for yourself and helping nobody and effectively making around the same amount of money."
You left out the exploitation part. To go back to the slaveholder example, using your logic, a slaveholder who donates wealth to charitable organizations is a better person than me for the charity that he or she does. The exploitation, whether it is the exploitation of wage labor or slavery, does not seem to factor in for you when determining the moral worth of a person. Well, it probably would for slavery, because you have been conditioned and indoctrinated to see slavery as bad (accurately), just as you have been conditioned and indoctrinated to see capitalist exploitation as, at worst, not nearly as bad as slavery and generally socially acceptable, and at best, desirable.
Yeah, I am the insanely stupid one, right...
Yes, right, you half assed wannabe intellectual retard.