[chrisphd]

LadiesMan217 could not point out a contradiction because no such condradiction existed.

LadiesMan217 says my argument contains at least 1 contradiction and purhaps is also flawed , so let's try to find out which part of the argument contradicts itself.
First i say:

if the man reaps a large profit from the business, this doesn't mean he is greedy.

This is not inconsistent with my arguments, as wealth is not nessesarily proportional to the profit obtained by the business. An example of this is if the business owner were to give his profits away immediately. Therefore, no contradiction here.

Otherwise, i went on to say:

I defined wealth as your possesion/money value,and therefore if the business owner does not own expensive possesions and gives his money away or invests it back into the business, then he is not considered wealthy

If you read my post, my definition of "wealth" in terms of this argument was the value of one's money/possesions. Therefore it follows that if a business owner has no possesions/money the business owner is not wealthy. That's no so hard to understand is it?

I then say:

and therefore can be considered to be not greedy either.

This was not illogical, as it followed from my earlier premise that greed is proportional to wealth. So do you think that my contradiction lies here?
Clearly not.
I guess if you are right that there is a contradiction, it must be in these last few segments. Let's have a look:

Wealth does not depend on salary.

This is logical based on my definition of wealth in this argument. Wealth is defined as the value of one's money/possesions. Therefore one's wealth cannot be determined based on one's salary. That is, someone with a large income can give all their money away, and therefore be considered to be not wealthy, or one with a large salary can keep all the money for him/herself and therefore be considered wealthy by my definition. Therefore it follows that salary does not determine one's wealth, because there is an extra step in determining wealth, which is, whether one decides to keep the money or give it away. So there is no "contradiction" here either.
Finally, i say:

If the man however uses his profit to buy things for himself, rather than give it away, he is being greedy.

This stems from my premise that wealth is proportional to greed. It follows logically that if a man keeps his money to buy possesions, his wealth is greater than if he were to give his money away, and therefore using my wealth/greed premise, he will be greedy.

Conclusion:
There is no "contradiction" despite LadiesMan217's hope that one might exist.
In future, i hope that you would carefully think about and analyse an argument before recklessly claiming that contradictions exist within it.