3 ms·

These are climate change deniers... I don't think they are really interested in statements of fact.

paul_f 13y ago
Can't decide if I want to respond to this by pointing out that it is argumentum ad populum or as an ad hominem (poisoning the well) argument. Hmmm, after much consideration, gonna go with ad hominem.
- keeshawn 13y ago
  What's your point? Incidentally, what logical arguments would you recommend one use against people who have rejected science as a legitimate world view?
  - pdx 13y ago
    I think you have a couple of problems. 1) You're obviously a troll with a 20 hour old account, so you feel like you need to get trolling early today. 2) You assume that people who disagree with you on some topic have "rejected science as a legitimate world view". You should try to reexamine this assumption, as you may find out it's invalid.
    - keeshawn 13y ago
      You can't "disagree" about climate change any more than you can "disagree" about heliocentrism. Also, notice that we can have a discussion despite the fact that you just threw out an ad hominem.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    In a parliamentary type of meeting which share holder meetings are - move next business is one way of dumping cranks. If the trolls whine quote Citrine (UK) or Roberts (USA) at them. And I have used Citrine as away of keeping control of a share holder meeting.
- rnprdk 13y ago
  Ad hominem can be completely appropriate if you're making a point about someone's character/credibility. I don't know why people think that ad hominem means you should never make arguments "to the man." In this case, I think he's saying that because these are politically motivated shareholders, a reasoned answer would be lost on them. Cook could have whipped out a lengthy powerpoint full of charts and figures, or he could have done the chicken dance, or whatever ... he's saying the shareholders are not asking the question in good faith. edit - Further, saying what you would prefer Cook do if you had asked the question isn't entirely relevant, since presumably you would be asking sincerely. Cook can probably tell those guys are only there to yank his chain and make him look foolish, so unsurprisingly he was somewhat hostile in response.
smsm42 13y ago
Of course, you should argue with facts and numbers only to people that agree with you. If they don't agree, it's obvious that they are stupid and evil, and thus beyond arguing. They should be just called names and told to STFU. Because nothing makes your position more compelling than refusing to address legitimate concerns - like how much the company spends on certain policy. Maybe to see if somebody is interested in statements of fact, you should first try having the statement of fact. And not just say "well, I could drown you in facts, but since you're not worth it, I'd just resort to name calling". That looks rather unconvincing to me.
- m0a0t0 13y ago
  Why bother if someone else who knows more than you has tried? Clearly climate change scientists will have tried to convince them and if they can't what hope does the Apple CEO have?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Climate change scientists never tried to publish Apple financial data. And that's what we are talking about here. Nobody asked Cook to predict temperatures in Arctica in 2030. He was asked for the effect of the specific policy on company bottom line - the thing which is the job of the CEO to know. He did not give the facts, and you say that because people who asked that legitimate question are disagreeing with you on some other question it's OK to dismiss them. That's classic ad hominem, and that's exactly what's wrong with modern political discourse - instead of seeking to convince and prove, people seek to dismiss and make the opponent shut up, because there's no talking to those people anyway.
- digikata 13y ago
  In this context, it's not an argument that Apple must win or lose. It's an inquiry that if the CEO thinks that a detailed answer is not warranted, and does not legally require further disclosure, than a CEO could legitimately decide to make a short answer. I think Cook was just cutting off an extended argument regarding climate change, a discussion that likely has low to negative value in the context of a shareholder meeting.

Can't decide if I want to respond to this by pointing out that it is argumentum ad populum or as an ad hominem (poisoning the well) argument. Hmmm, after much consideration, gonna go with ad hominem.

keeshawn 13y ago
What's your point? Incidentally, what logical arguments would you recommend one use against people who have rejected science as a legitimate world view?
- pdx 13y ago
  I think you have a couple of problems. 1) You're obviously a troll with a 20 hour old account, so you feel like you need to get trolling early today. 2) You assume that people who disagree with you on some topic have "rejected science as a legitimate world view". You should try to reexamine this assumption, as you may find out it's invalid.
  - keeshawn 13y ago
    You can't "disagree" about climate change any more than you can "disagree" about heliocentrism. Also, notice that we can have a discussion despite the fact that you just threw out an ad hominem.
- walshemj 13y ago
  In a parliamentary type of meeting which share holder meetings are - move next business is one way of dumping cranks. If the trolls whine quote Citrine (UK) or Roberts (USA) at them. And I have used Citrine as away of keeping control of a share holder meeting.
rnprdk 13y ago
Ad hominem can be completely appropriate if you're making a point about someone's character/credibility. I don't know why people think that ad hominem means you should never make arguments "to the man." In this case, I think he's saying that because these are politically motivated shareholders, a reasoned answer would be lost on them. Cook could have whipped out a lengthy powerpoint full of charts and figures, or he could have done the chicken dance, or whatever ... he's saying the shareholders are not asking the question in good faith. edit - Further, saying what you would prefer Cook do if you had asked the question isn't entirely relevant, since presumably you would be asking sincerely. Cook can probably tell those guys are only there to yank his chain and make him look foolish, so unsurprisingly he was somewhat hostile in response.

smsm42 13y ago

Of course, you should argue with facts and numbers only to people that agree with you. If they don't agree, it's obvious that they are stupid and evil, and thus beyond arguing. They should be just called names and told to STFU. Because nothing makes your position more compelling than refusing to address legitimate concerns - like how much the company spends on certain policy. Maybe to see if somebody is interested in statements of fact, you should first try having the statement of fact. And not just say "well, I could drown you in facts, but since you're not worth it, I'd just resort to name calling". That looks rather unconvincing to me.

m0a0t0 13y ago
Why bother if someone else who knows more than you has tried? Clearly climate change scientists will have tried to convince them and if they can't what hope does the Apple CEO have?
- smsm42 13y ago
  Climate change scientists never tried to publish Apple financial data. And that's what we are talking about here. Nobody asked Cook to predict temperatures in Arctica in 2030. He was asked for the effect of the specific policy on company bottom line - the thing which is the job of the CEO to know. He did not give the facts, and you say that because people who asked that legitimate question are disagreeing with you on some other question it's OK to dismiss them. That's classic ad hominem, and that's exactly what's wrong with modern political discourse - instead of seeking to convince and prove, people seek to dismiss and make the opponent shut up, because there's no talking to those people anyway.
digikata 13y ago
In this context, it's not an argument that Apple must win or lose. It's an inquiry that if the CEO thinks that a detailed answer is not warranted, and does not legally require further disclosure, than a CEO could legitimately decide to make a short answer. I think Cook was just cutting off an extended argument regarding climate change, a discussion that likely has low to negative value in the context of a shareholder meeting.