4 ms·

People who want to repair their own phones are free to purchase non-Apple hardware and do so. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
I have one simple question for you: Do you always, without exception, study every single line of terms and conditions of every purchase you make and every service you use until you have completely understood the legal implications of all of them before you actually enter into a contract? Or have you ever agreed to a contract without that level of investigation?
- wrboyce 7y ago
  That isn’t a simple question, is it. At best it is loaded and unnecessarily complex. Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes.
- wrboyce 7y ago
  That isn’t a simple question, is it. At best it is loaded and unnecessarily complex. Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes. EDIT: Oops, misread the second question. Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > That isn’t a simple question, is it. What about it isn't simple? > At best it is loaded What about it is loaded? > and unnecessarily complex. What about it is unnecessarily complex? > Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation. OK. So, suppose in one of those contracts there was a clause that you weren't aware of that said that you would be required to hand over all or any of your property to the other party on request. Do you think that that should be enforceable? If you think it shouldn't, why not? Especially so considering that you were free to not enter into that contract, therefore you, arguably, would not be forced to hand over your property when this clause is being enforced.
    - wrboyce 7y ago
      Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. That's ... not what a loaded question is? A loaded question is a question that presupposes as fact that for which no agreement exists, which is why it is fallacious. Setting up a scenario to support one's own position is exactly the opposite of that: It's the honest thing to do. Also, what exactly is wrong with a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly not a fallacy!? > The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. When someone asks you "do you think that X should/should not be legal", answering "X is/is not legal" is a fallacy known as dodging the question. Ironic given how much you seem to dislike fallacies that aren't even fallacies!? > If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing. "maturely" as in I may only make arguments that agree with your position (because you seem to object to logically valid arguments simply because they contradict your position), while you are free to use fallacies as it suits you (which is what you have done)? I think that's the kind of approach that I would generally use the label "immature" for, but I guess labelling that as "mature" fits right in with you being the one to use all the fallacious arguments?!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

I have one simple question for you: Do you always, without exception, study every single line of terms and conditions of every purchase you make and every service you use until you have completely understood the legal implications of all of them before you actually enter into a contract? Or have you ever agreed to a contract without that level of investigation?

wrboyce 7y ago
That isn’t a simple question, is it. At best it is loaded and unnecessarily complex. Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes.
wrboyce 7y ago
That isn’t a simple question, is it. At best it is loaded and unnecessarily complex. Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes. EDIT: Oops, misread the second question. Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > That isn’t a simple question, is it. What about it isn't simple? > At best it is loaded What about it is loaded? > and unnecessarily complex. What about it is unnecessarily complex? > Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation. OK. So, suppose in one of those contracts there was a clause that you weren't aware of that said that you would be required to hand over all or any of your property to the other party on request. Do you think that that should be enforceable? If you think it shouldn't, why not? Especially so considering that you were free to not enter into that contract, therefore you, arguably, would not be forced to hand over your property when this clause is being enforced.
  - wrboyce 7y ago
    Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > Loaded because it was clearly setting the scene for you to engage in reductio ad absurdum, which you promptly did. That's ... not what a loaded question is? A loaded question is a question that presupposes as fact that for which no agreement exists, which is why it is fallacious. Setting up a scenario to support one's own position is exactly the opposite of that: It's the honest thing to do. Also, what exactly is wrong with a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly not a fallacy!? > The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot. When someone asks you "do you think that X should/should not be legal", answering "X is/is not legal" is a fallacy known as dodging the question. Ironic given how much you seem to dislike fallacies that aren't even fallacies!? > If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing. "maturely" as in I may only make arguments that agree with your position (because you seem to object to logically valid arguments simply because they contradict your position), while you are free to use fallacies as it suits you (which is what you have done)? I think that's the kind of approach that I would generally use the label "immature" for, but I guess labelling that as "mature" fits right in with you being the one to use all the fallacious arguments?!