4 ms·

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Frankly by this point you seem to be deliberately engaging in bad faith, which doesn’t fit at all with what I remember from the

by latexr 1y ago

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Frankly by this point you seem to be deliberately engaging in bad faith, which doesn’t fit at all with what I remember from the character in your username (unless that is your real name). Steel man the argument, then we can talk. Either way, there’s no point to engaging in your hypotheticals. Answering them won’t make any difference, they’re just a waste of everyone’s time.

al_borland 1y ago
I'm simply trying to understand what direction you'd like Apple to go when dealing with countries like China and their rules, since you think Cook is "cowardly" for how he is handling it. I've made 3 attempts to get an answer and you keep talking around it instead of giving a straight answer. Now you've turned to ad hominem. One of us is arguing in bad faith, and I don't think it's me.
- latexr 1y ago
  > I'm simply trying to understand what direction you'd like Apple to go when dealing with countries like China and their rules And I’ve explained multiple times (this will be the last) that your question is at best malformed and at worst a deliberate trapping because the complaint isn’t about one specific case but a pattern of behaviour. Let’s say your cousin is an alcoholic and drug addict who beats his wife, defrauded your grandmother, amongst other behaviours. One day he pisses inside your car and you tell him this has to stop. Then his brother starts harassing you about how your cousin was drunk and didn’t think he could get to a bathroom in time and that’s why he pissed in your car, and “what did you want him to do, he really had to go” and “what would you have done if it was impossible for you to hold it in”. What you wanted him to do was not reach that point. It’s pointless to argue about the action he should’ve taken to specifically not piss in your car because that event in isolation is not the issue, it’s just another symptom of a bigger problem which has to be fixed. If it had been you, you never would have been in that situation to begin with so the hypothetical does not matter. > Now you've turned to ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument “where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument”. I’ve done no such thing. Saying “you seem to be engaging in bad faith” says nothing about your motives or character, it only concerns a point in time. Like saying “you are drunk” VS “you are an alcoholic”. The former is not an ad hominem, it’s just a statement explaining why you believe it’s unfruitful to continue the conversation at that point in time. We really can’t continue the conversation if you’re misattributing fallacies and don’t make an effort to steel man the argument. Hammering on the same point over and over after I explained multiple times how you’re misunderstanding it is not the way to a productive conversation. You’re stuck on a preconceived idea in your head which is not my argument, fighting a straw man of your own making.

by latexr 1y ago

al_borland 1y ago

I'm simply trying to understand what direction you'd like Apple to go when dealing with countries like China and their rules, since you think Cook is "cowardly" for how he is handling it. I've made 3 attempts to get an answer and you keep talking around it instead of giving a straight answer. Now you've turned to ad hominem. One of us is arguing in bad faith, and I don't think it's me.

latexr 1y ago
> I'm simply trying to understand what direction you'd like Apple to go when dealing with countries like China and their rules And I’ve explained multiple times (this will be the last) that your question is at best malformed and at worst a deliberate trapping because the complaint isn’t about one specific case but a pattern of behaviour. Let’s say your cousin is an alcoholic and drug addict who beats his wife, defrauded your grandmother, amongst other behaviours. One day he pisses inside your car and you tell him this has to stop. Then his brother starts harassing you about how your cousin was drunk and didn’t think he could get to a bathroom in time and that’s why he pissed in your car, and “what did you want him to do, he really had to go” and “what would you have done if it was impossible for you to hold it in”. What you wanted him to do was not reach that point. It’s pointless to argue about the action he should’ve taken to specifically not piss in your car because that event in isolation is not the issue, it’s just another symptom of a bigger problem which has to be fixed. If it had been you, you never would have been in that situation to begin with so the hypothetical does not matter. > Now you've turned to ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument “where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument”. I’ve done no such thing. Saying “you seem to be engaging in bad faith” says nothing about your motives or character, it only concerns a point in time. Like saying “you are drunk” VS “you are an alcoholic”. The former is not an ad hominem, it’s just a statement explaining why you believe it’s unfruitful to continue the conversation at that point in time. We really can’t continue the conversation if you’re misattributing fallacies and don’t make an effort to steel man the argument. Hammering on the same point over and over after I explained multiple times how you’re misunderstanding it is not the way to a productive conversation. You’re stuck on a preconceived idea in your head which is not my argument, fighting a straw man of your own making.