I would argue that the problem with broad generalizations and fuzzy definitions comes not from me, but from the article in question. The logical fallacy in the

I would argue that the problem with broad generalizations and fuzzy definitions comes not from me, but from the article in question. The logical fallacy in the article is that he seems to be equating perceived value in the modern workforce with human worth as a whole. I agree absolutely with what you are saying: there are different definitions of value depending on the arena in question. The issue is that we seem to be taking one area (technology) and equating it with all others, which as you say, isn't useful or valid. I've enjoyed our discussions :)