> this isnt an argument. Correct, the rest of his comment is the argument that backs up the statement he made. They explain how a source that isn't sound cant

> this isnt an argument. Correct, the rest of his comment is the argument that backs up the statement he made. They explain how a source that isn't sound cant make a text that is sound. In the same way that a stoped clock can still tell the time and it may even tell the correct time twice a day but that does not mean the clock is sound. You can't find understanding in a text that comes from a source that is unsound in the same way a stopped clock can't keep time, its ability to do so is compromised. Even if the clock is coincidentally correct twice a day how would you know? Without a sound source to tell the time you don't know if the broken source is telling the correct time even when it is. There is understanding to be had from reading the manifesto but its not understanding on the subject of technology and society. In the manifesto he talks about society as something he is subjected to that he has to struggle through. Technology is used as a scapegoat for his anger and is only really talked about from a general perspective almost as if it where a type of magic. Without first reading other sound texts to give you an understanding of topic it would be impossible to separate sound arguments from unsound as they are all presented from the same unsound source.