4 ms·

This makes me wonder, again, whether I have read a different article. If you want to attack the NYT piece, maybe you should comment on that thread, but this is

by skore 15y ago

This makes me wonder, again, whether I have read a different article. If you want to attack the NYT piece, maybe you should comment on that thread, but this is the discussion about Tim O'Reilly's post containing reflections on the general theme, not apple as an actor in particular. That makes your comment seems misplayed here.

carbocation 15y ago
No, I read Mr. O'Reilly's piece and am responding to it. You seem to be saying that, because I reject the premises and false arguments that he makes in his introduction, therefore I didn't read it? Feel free to respond to my substantive point rather than just distracting from the actual conversation.
- skore 15y ago
  Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me elaborate on the theme of taxation). The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
  - carbocation 15y ago
    As I stated, I read the article and am familiar in fact with the bold "hey, I said I'd give you my personal opinion" transition that he makes midway through. He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules. In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
    - skore 14y ago
      Now I'm profoundly confused - That is precisely what he is doing: Arguing that we should establish that tone of conversation in order to get some change going. The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes. Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.
- jarcoal 14y ago
  Your initial post is the distraction. It doesn't address the main point of the article at all, it should have been posted in the NYT thread. This heart of this post begins at "But to my promised personal reflections"

by skore 15y ago

carbocation 15y ago

No, I read Mr. O'Reilly's piece and am responding to it. You seem to be saying that, because I reject the premises and false arguments that he makes in his introduction, therefore I didn't read it? Feel free to respond to my substantive point rather than just distracting from the actual conversation.

skore 15y ago
Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me elaborate on the theme of taxation). The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
- carbocation 15y ago
  As I stated, I read the article and am familiar in fact with the bold "hey, I said I'd give you my personal opinion" transition that he makes midway through. He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules. In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
  - skore 14y ago
    Now I'm profoundly confused - That is precisely what he is doing: Arguing that we should establish that tone of conversation in order to get some change going. The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes. Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.
jarcoal 14y ago
Your initial post is the distraction. It doesn't address the main point of the article at all, it should have been posted in the NYT thread. This heart of this post begins at "But to my promised personal reflections"