4 ms·

What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed? This is an incredibly c

What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed? This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts. Take for example the ACLU's (IMO correct) defense of Neo Nazi groups to march in solidarity. This is the type of freedom that our country is based on. It's not something I personally affirm, but I have to defend the right on principle. Tom Cook talks up one side of the issue. His credentials have nothing to do with the topic. If we were in a critical thinking class we would recognize this as a cut and clear case of an appeal from authority. Can we get something more substantive?

Retra 12y ago
If you don't want Tim Cook to say the words, just read them aloud to yourself and pretend they are your words. Then analyze their substance based on the content, rather than who says them. The counter to an appeal to authority is not to ask for a different authority. (It is to become an authority yourself.)
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  That's not what's going on here. The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away. Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.
  - kimdouglasmason 12y ago
    Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Essentially: Because it isn't news if it isn't 'new'.
      - Retra 12y ago
        Some of us actually were born yesterday, you know.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
plorg 12y ago
For one, this issue seems to be one which he is personally taking on himself. Part of it seems to be his identity as a gay man. He also takes pains to frame the issue with regards to a faith which is deeply personal to him. I don't know that he is necessarily trying to use this as a rhetorical cudgel, to beat the conclusion into the minds of those who support discriminatory legislation. This letter/editorial seems to be framed as Tim, with the support of Apple, raising a rallying flag or even just joining in the rally of businesses who are against this legislation.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  It is not Tim Cook who is using this as rhetorical cudgel. It is the Washington Post's rhetoric and the WP's readership, and by proxy HN, that are subjects of that rhetoric.
  - kimdouglasmason 12y ago
    Wat? Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man. But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo. I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations. As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....' I suspect Tim Cook is stating his actual opinion on this one; as a gay man, who doesn't want laws passed in his own country that would allow businesses to withhold service solely because he's a gay man. Seems sensible to me.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation... Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy. WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an authority figure. But on their own - no the ideas are not anything new.
threeseed 12y ago
Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies. This alone makes him absolutely qualified to comment.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Merely being a citizen makes someone qualified to comment. Being the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies has nothing to do with having correct, interesting or developed legal background or politics. The Washington Post is using his status as CEO as an appeal from authority - to imply his politics are somehow interesting or informed or correct.
- coldtea 12y ago
  ...on his industry...
  - threeseed 12y ago
    Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Yes they do. It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.
      - kimdouglasmason 12y ago
        You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they are wrong. Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.

Retra 12y ago

If you don't want Tim Cook to say the words, just read them aloud to yourself and pretend they are your words. Then analyze their substance based on the content, rather than who says them. The counter to an appeal to authority is not to ask for a different authority. (It is to become an authority yourself.)

xnull2guest 12y ago
That's not what's going on here. The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away. Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.
- kimdouglasmason 12y ago
  Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Essentially: Because it isn't news if it isn't 'new'.
    - Retra 12y ago
      Some of us actually were born yesterday, you know.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

plorg 12y ago

For one, this issue seems to be one which he is personally taking on himself. Part of it seems to be his identity as a gay man. He also takes pains to frame the issue with regards to a faith which is deeply personal to him. I don't know that he is necessarily trying to use this as a rhetorical cudgel, to beat the conclusion into the minds of those who support discriminatory legislation. This letter/editorial seems to be framed as Tim, with the support of Apple, raising a rallying flag or even just joining in the rally of businesses who are against this legislation.

xnull2guest 12y ago
It is not Tim Cook who is using this as rhetorical cudgel. It is the Washington Post's rhetoric and the WP's readership, and by proxy HN, that are subjects of that rhetoric.
- kimdouglasmason 12y ago
  Wat? Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man. But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo. I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations. As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....' I suspect Tim Cook is stating his actual opinion on this one; as a gay man, who doesn't want laws passed in his own country that would allow businesses to withhold service solely because he's a gay man. Seems sensible to me.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation... Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy. WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an authority figure. But on their own - no the ideas are not anything new.

threeseed 12y ago

Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies. This alone makes him absolutely qualified to comment.

xnull2guest 12y ago
Merely being a citizen makes someone qualified to comment. Being the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies has nothing to do with having correct, interesting or developed legal background or politics. The Washington Post is using his status as CEO as an appeal from authority - to imply his politics are somehow interesting or informed or correct.
coldtea 12y ago
...on his industry...
- threeseed 12y ago
  Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Yes they do. It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.
    - kimdouglasmason 12y ago
      You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they are wrong. Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.