He wrote "it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea". There is a level of badness at which ideas become shameful to promote, but that's a pretty high bar to clear, and I'm pretty sure electronic brands that don't actually kill people can't clear it at all.
It really bugs me when people lop off parts of sentences to make a quote in a different context. What he actually wrote was "it's downright shameful for this guy to run around promoting the idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy". The idea that open devices are designed to enable piracy should not really be one of those "well, that is your opinion" type of things. It is a broad generalization that is flat wrong because... well... it is such a broad generalization. Open devices are designed to... uh... be open. To enable user control. To enable hobbyist tinkering. To enable community help. Being that the "enable piracy" idea is dead wrong, promoting it is dangerous & harmful... thus worthy of shame.
I haven't cut off context. You just disagree with his idea so strongly that it upsets you for him to even have it.
I don't believe "openness" connotes "intent to enable piracy", but "piracy is far more rampant in the open Android ecosystem than the closed iOS ecosystem" isn't an unreasonable observation to make, and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it.
Stop telling people to be embarrassed about their ideas. It's a very poor rhetorical strategy. The only benefit it accrues to you is that it riles your supporters up into similarly gnarly expressions of contempt. It certainly doesn't persuade anyone of anything.
and, having made it, "openness promotes piracy" isn't a totally unreasonable conclusion to draw from it.
And that isn't what I quoted and replied to. If that was all TFA had said, I probably could have nodded my head and said "Yeah, whatever" and kept going. But TFA made a much stronger statement than that, which you seem to conveniently be ignoring here, since you apparently want to win an argument that no one else seems to be having.
Stop telling people to be embarrassed about their ideas. It's a very poor rhetorical strategy. The only benefit it accrues to you is that it riles your supporters up into similarly gnarly expressions of contempt. It certainly doesn't persuade anyone of anything.
Porn is definitely promoted on the Interent... but I don't think it is accurate to say that The Interent promotes porn. Or that the Internet was designed to enable porn.
So... reasonable people observed that Google profits off piracy... and that leads to the conclusion that "open devices are designed to enable piracy"?
>Your last sentence is a non sequitur.
Side note: Interesting that non sequitur has two different uses that make you either wrong or right depending on which you were using.
If you are thinking of it as a literary device because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, then I would say you are wrong. It is an example of how the formula THIS has a lot of THAT, therefore THIS promotes THAT is not an accurate formula. I believe it to be a relevant example, therefore not a non sequitur (literary device)
If you are thinking of it in terms of logic because its conclusion does not follow from its premises, then I would say you are right... because that was the whole point of giving those examples. The premise of THIS has a lot of THAT is not sufficient to make the conclusion that THIS promotes THAT. It almost never is. So... yes, a non sequitur (logic).
There is a level of badness at which ideas become shameful to promote, but that's a pretty high bar to clear
In your subjective view, which has exactly zero more, or less, validity here than mine. This feels like you're wasting time, arguing for the sake of being pedantic, or just because you like arguing.
Is there some fundamental point you're trying to make here? Because if there is, it doesn't look like anyone else is getting it.
Congrats, you've summed up every debate ever. I guess we can shut down this website, huh?
How about, "People who want to violate my property rights by crippling the digital devices I own (and/or refusing to let me own such open devices in the first place) because they'd make a little more money that way are morally wrong."
You think it's morally wrong for companies to sell products that can't be modified after the purchase transaction. That's fine, but reasonable people can disagree on that point, so I'd recommend not trying to shame people into agreeing with you.
Yes. This isn't about piracy, this is about personal property rights. The OP essentially decried the existence of my personal property because it hampers his ability to make money.
I expect to be able to load software of my choosing on hardware that I own. I expect to be able to delete software that I disapprove of or is causing me harm. I expect to be able to browse files and delete data that I don't want. I expect to be able to monitor my hardware to ensure that it hasn't been hijacked. I expect to be able to disable or block any tracking software, and at the very least, to close any back doors I find. I expect all this because I own a fairly powerful general purpose computing device, the greatest invention of mankind.
Maybe Joe User doesn't expect to do these things himself, but he should expect a choice in services and providers, not a blanket "Sorry Joe, I'm afraid I can't let you do that" from a single malevolent dictator like Apple.
So yes, a company that promises such things by selling me something (rather than just conditionally renting out the hardware), and then continues to exert their control over my property at my expense and for their profit, is morally wrong.
"Guy doesn't agree with me on something fundamental. Shame on him."