4 ms·

It's their store for their flagship product. They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash.

by sant0sk1 17y ago

jasonlotito 17y ago
That doesn't mean we can't question their practices and their choices.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  We can also question the validity and reasoning of the criticism and hopefully arrive at a better level of criticism. It does no good to simply say "I disagree, therefore it is wrong." In this case, the author has characterized Apple's operation of Apple's own store as "almost Stalinian" and "completely unacceptable in a democratic country" without any argument to support this. Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    sigh "They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash." That's the dismissal. The OP was dismissing the argument. "Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable." This wasn't a point, and has no bearing on the arguments being presented.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      What arguments are being presented? I quoted the article. You sighed. It's unclear what you think is being argued by claiming nonsense like that Apple is acting like Stalin.
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        You're just purposely being dense now. If you aren't...
        GHFigs 17y ago
        Forgive me if I do not divine any great insight from your use of ellipsis. I honestly do not know what you're talking about, and your approach does not clarify anything. It is obvious that you disagree with me, but it is not obvious in what way and from what line of reasoning. I quoted part of the article in which the author argues that what Apple has done has no place in a democratic country. I do not understand how that is not easily refuted by the fact that in this democratic country, Apple is well within their rights to do what they have done. I see one of two possibilities: 1) I have misinterpreted the passages I have directly quoted. 2) I have failed to detect the argument(s) you're referring to. 1) is plausible, but unlikely. 2) is plausible, but your response to my question does not give me any reason to believe that is the case. The conclusion I'm left with is the one I started with: that this article is simply a poor piece of criticism.

It's their store for their flagship product. They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash.

jasonlotito 17y ago

That doesn't mean we can't question their practices and their choices.

GHFigs 17y ago
We can also question the validity and reasoning of the criticism and hopefully arrive at a better level of criticism. It does no good to simply say "I disagree, therefore it is wrong." In this case, the author has characterized Apple's operation of Apple's own store as "almost Stalinian" and "completely unacceptable in a democratic country" without any argument to support this. Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  sigh "They don't have to explain to you if they want to take out the trash." That's the dismissal. The OP was dismissing the argument. "Pointing out that it is within Apple's rights is a counter-argument to the argument that was actually made, not merely a dismissal of it as inarguable." This wasn't a point, and has no bearing on the arguments being presented.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    What arguments are being presented? I quoted the article. You sighed. It's unclear what you think is being argued by claiming nonsense like that Apple is acting like Stalin.
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      You're just purposely being dense now. If you aren't...
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        Forgive me if I do not divine any great insight from your use of ellipsis. I honestly do not know what you're talking about, and your approach does not clarify anything. It is obvious that you disagree with me, but it is not obvious in what way and from what line of reasoning. I quoted part of the article in which the author argues that what Apple has done has no place in a democratic country. I do not understand how that is not easily refuted by the fact that in this democratic country, Apple is well within their rights to do what they have done. I see one of two possibilities: 1) I have misinterpreted the passages I have directly quoted. 2) I have failed to detect the argument(s) you're referring to. 1) is plausible, but unlikely. 2) is plausible, but your response to my question does not give me any reason to believe that is the case. The conclusion I'm left with is the one I started with: that this article is simply a poor piece of criticism.