4 ms·
> He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist. He _literally_ did, himself, in the article he wrote: "I think the privacy argume
by craigsmansion 6y ago
> He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist.
He _literally_ did, himself, in the article he wrote:
"I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched"
and actually acknowledging it verbatim:
"While I'm going to sound like an Apple apologist,"
as in "people who say this are Apple apologists, but I'm only like one if I state it."
> Many invalid points, and straw men in your comment.
Of course.
- zepto 6y agoI see you concede that there was no lie of omission. You just disagree with him, but are engaging in ad hominem rather than engaging with his points.