3 ms·

> Can you quote a single comment from this thread in which I defend Apple? "Obviously they make their own ethical judgements when enforcing their own rules, as

> Can you quote a single comment from this thread in which I defend Apple? "Obviously they make their own ethical judgements when enforcing their own rules, as do we all." - It would have been more difficult to find comments from this thread where you didn't defend Apple applying all sorts of mental gymnastics.

zepto 6y ago
What makes you think I’m defending Apple there? That quoted statement is obviously true. How does it “defend Apple” to state the truth?
- jedimind 6y ago
  > What makes you think I’m defending Apple there? That quoted statement is obviously true. It's a tautology and a miserable attempt at defending Apple. Like reacting to a victim's complaint by saying "Well animals also steal from each other, most organisms engage in such behaviour" Then saying - That statement is true so how am I defending the thief here!? Even asking "hOw DiD I dEfEnD aPpLe" is absurd, when that's literally all you have been doing in most of the comments above. I'll no longer participate in your pointless hairsplitting games.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It’s only a tautology if you believe that ethics have a subjective dimension. That is not a given in this thread, where people are writing comments that essentialise Apple’s ethics. The reason I made that comment was to highlight this point. Each of us is bringing a sense of what is right and wrong to this. One we introduce this, we can start to reason about why Apple is taking what we think of as a wrong action, and what kind of compromises are leading to it. Simply vilifying them just closes us of from understanding them. Your analogy positions Apple as a perpetrator, the developer as a victim, and me as an apologist. Once again, you aren’t actually engaging in a discussion. You are begging the question with your framing. http://begthequestion.info/ http://begthequestion.info/ You aren’t actually explaining why the framing is valid. As I said, if I were really defending Apple, it would be easy to show. Just repeating over and over again that I am is not that. You can’t explain it because it isn’t happening.
    - jedimind 6y ago
      > It’s only a tautology if you believe that ethics have a subjective dimension. Utter nonsense, it's a tautology either way, it being derived from a subjective or objective source has no effect on it. > Simply vilifying them just closes us of from understanding them. "Simply vilifying" them? It's not rocket science, a trillion dollar business is trying to protect its image using shady tactics. Your framing is again reeking of bias: "people are just vilifying poor Apple" according to you, but it's more like you blindly defending Apple, spamming the whole thread. > Once again, you aren’t actually engaging in a discussion. You are begging the question with your framing. We are engaging in the discussion, while you are trying to fool people with deceptive rhetoric. You have been given many evidences, but you always deflected with pseudo intellectual, unconvincing rhetoric. >As I said, if I were really defending Apple, it would be easy to show. Just repeating over and over again that I am is not that. You can’t explain it because it isn’t happening. People besides me have given you enough evidence & have also pointed out your weaselly rhetoric. You are truly living in your own fantasy world, most of your comments are greyed out for a good reason.
      - zepto 6y ago
        If I’m using ‘deceptive rhetoric’ are you able to say what I am trying to deceive people about? If other people are saying I’m using deceptive rhetoric, perhaps you can find an example? I am having discussions with other people here, but none of them support your assertions about me, and none of them are making accusations the way you are or the way you claim they are. They are all reasoned interactions engaging with one another’s statements to reach understanding. Some of my comments are grayed out because people are angry with Apple and like you, some people perceive me to be defending Apple, largely because I’m not joining in with the condemnation. Once again, you haven’t found any examples of me defending Apple, and there are numerous examples of me criticizing them or agreeing with criticism. Only one person has descended into name calling, accusations, and mocking in this thread. As to people villifying Apple. I explained why I don’t think that is helpful. This is not the same as your begging the question. As to it bring ‘obvious’ - if you’ve read my comments, you’d know that I agree that Apple wouldn’t care about these things if they didn’t make Apple look bad. But that fact doesn’t make it helpful to write snark about them. This entire sub-thread is driven by you not liking the analysis of your snarky original comment that you asked me to provide. I question where the delusion resides.

zepto 6y ago

What makes you think I’m defending Apple there? That quoted statement is obviously true. How does it “defend Apple” to state the truth?

jedimind 6y ago
> What makes you think I’m defending Apple there? That quoted statement is obviously true. It's a tautology and a miserable attempt at defending Apple. Like reacting to a victim's complaint by saying "Well animals also steal from each other, most organisms engage in such behaviour" Then saying - That statement is true so how am I defending the thief here!? Even asking "hOw DiD I dEfEnD aPpLe" is absurd, when that's literally all you have been doing in most of the comments above. I'll no longer participate in your pointless hairsplitting games.
- zepto 6y ago
  It’s only a tautology if you believe that ethics have a subjective dimension. That is not a given in this thread, where people are writing comments that essentialise Apple’s ethics. The reason I made that comment was to highlight this point. Each of us is bringing a sense of what is right and wrong to this. One we introduce this, we can start to reason about why Apple is taking what we think of as a wrong action, and what kind of compromises are leading to it. Simply vilifying them just closes us of from understanding them. Your analogy positions Apple as a perpetrator, the developer as a victim, and me as an apologist. Once again, you aren’t actually engaging in a discussion. You are begging the question with your framing. http://begthequestion.info/ http://begthequestion.info/ You aren’t actually explaining why the framing is valid. As I said, if I were really defending Apple, it would be easy to show. Just repeating over and over again that I am is not that. You can’t explain it because it isn’t happening.
  - jedimind 6y ago
    > It’s only a tautology if you believe that ethics have a subjective dimension. Utter nonsense, it's a tautology either way, it being derived from a subjective or objective source has no effect on it. > Simply vilifying them just closes us of from understanding them. "Simply vilifying" them? It's not rocket science, a trillion dollar business is trying to protect its image using shady tactics. Your framing is again reeking of bias: "people are just vilifying poor Apple" according to you, but it's more like you blindly defending Apple, spamming the whole thread. > Once again, you aren’t actually engaging in a discussion. You are begging the question with your framing. We are engaging in the discussion, while you are trying to fool people with deceptive rhetoric. You have been given many evidences, but you always deflected with pseudo intellectual, unconvincing rhetoric. >As I said, if I were really defending Apple, it would be easy to show. Just repeating over and over again that I am is not that. You can’t explain it because it isn’t happening. People besides me have given you enough evidence & have also pointed out your weaselly rhetoric. You are truly living in your own fantasy world, most of your comments are greyed out for a good reason.
    - zepto 6y ago
      If I’m using ‘deceptive rhetoric’ are you able to say what I am trying to deceive people about? If other people are saying I’m using deceptive rhetoric, perhaps you can find an example? I am having discussions with other people here, but none of them support your assertions about me, and none of them are making accusations the way you are or the way you claim they are. They are all reasoned interactions engaging with one another’s statements to reach understanding. Some of my comments are grayed out because people are angry with Apple and like you, some people perceive me to be defending Apple, largely because I’m not joining in with the condemnation. Once again, you haven’t found any examples of me defending Apple, and there are numerous examples of me criticizing them or agreeing with criticism. Only one person has descended into name calling, accusations, and mocking in this thread. As to people villifying Apple. I explained why I don’t think that is helpful. This is not the same as your begging the question. As to it bring ‘obvious’ - if you’ve read my comments, you’d know that I agree that Apple wouldn’t care about these things if they didn’t make Apple look bad. But that fact doesn’t make it helpful to write snark about them. This entire sub-thread is driven by you not liking the analysis of your snarky original comment that you asked me to provide. I question where the delusion resides.