3 ms·

Somehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the w

by abduhl 5y ago

Somehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the water like a duck, it’s an eagle?

Jensson 5y ago
No, the argument isn't "Apple is like a government since Apple is retaliating". The argument is "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate". And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".
- abduhl 5y ago
  I understand the definitional argument that is being made, but it still makes no sense. This was the statement: “ Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.” A quasi government isn’t a government. A privately owned and unregulated entity isn’t a government. That’s the whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is like a government then of course Apple should be treated like a government. But on the face of the analysis, they’re not like a government. You need to support how they’re like a government. What about them is like a government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the argument that they ARE a government. It’s like saying “Apple is a duck, but it isn’t acting like a duck because it’s acting like an eagle!” and then when someone says “but Apple is an eagle by law and has always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a duck?” you responded with “you’re missing the point, I said they’re a duck so they should act like one!”
- judge2020 5y ago
  The comment makes no arguments for this point, though - it establishes an opinion (Apple acting like a government) then starts listing off facts like they support that argument.

by abduhl 5y ago

Somehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the water like a duck, it’s an eagle?

Jensson 5y ago

No, the argument isn't "Apple is like a government since Apple is retaliating". The argument is "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate". And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".

abduhl 5y ago
I understand the definitional argument that is being made, but it still makes no sense. This was the statement: “ Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.” A quasi government isn’t a government. A privately owned and unregulated entity isn’t a government. That’s the whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is like a government then of course Apple should be treated like a government. But on the face of the analysis, they’re not like a government. You need to support how they’re like a government. What about them is like a government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the argument that they ARE a government. It’s like saying “Apple is a duck, but it isn’t acting like a duck because it’s acting like an eagle!” and then when someone says “but Apple is an eagle by law and has always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a duck?” you responded with “you’re missing the point, I said they’re a duck so they should act like one!”
judge2020 5y ago
The comment makes no arguments for this point, though - it establishes an opinion (Apple acting like a government) then starts listing off facts like they support that argument.