3 ms·
Well I'm downvoting you for your edit, which is simultaneously childishly whiny and quite funny in its lack of awareness: read your original again, and then ask
by scrumper 12y ago
Well I'm downvoting you for your edit, which is simultaneously childishly whiny and quite funny in its lack of awareness: read your original again, and then ask yourself if you don't think you might be coming across as a bit of an ideologue yourself.
I disagree with your original argument because it's a straw man. 'Ethical' was used by the parent to refer to the consideration to use XMPP, not to Google as a corporation. The parent simply posited that Google's decision to use XMPP was not motivated by ethical concerns. Supporting, in a way, your own point.
- eevilspock 12y agoI'm agreeing with the parent. Neither of us subscribes to the commonly held belief around these parts that Google is special and lives by its "Don't be evil" tag line. I don't understand why you call my point a straw man. Tell me why I come across as an ideologue? My opinion is strong and critical, yes, but it is not rooted in zealotry. Are people who decry the NSA's lying to Congress about its illegal collection of private data ideologues? Why is my comment childish? Is it not childish to name-call a legitimate argument "childish" rather than addressing the point? Is it possible that Upton Sinclair's words apply to you? [I think it's hilarious that I keep getting new downvotes (at least 3) and upvotes to match. Sad really. Downvotes should be used to bury junk, not legitimate replies. Instead of an intelligent discussion, we have this. Maybe it could turn into an intelligent discussion on intelligent discussion. :P]