|
|
|
|
|
|
by nl
5271 days ago
|
|
|
You could have just said "I agree with Mr. Moglen on points X-Z, but I would like to weigh them against the benefits of social networks" - and then do that. That would clearly mark that you are opening your own line of reasoning instead of trying to forcibly claim them on the OP. Then, we could have that discussion together. There are an infinite number of ways I could have responded, but I deliberately chose to use an analogy, and to express my anger about how Moglen presented a 100% negative view. I understand why you say that he didn't need to express anything positive about social networking, and I disagree. To me, one should always attempt to give an honest view on any subject. Moglen's 100% negative views are either wrong or dishonest. That make me angry. Show me where I misrepresented Moglen's views in anyway. That's the definition of a strawman, and I object most strongly to your claim that I used one. Nor do I troll, take cheap shots or resort to personal attacks. |
|
|
You say: "His argument isn't valid because he isn't talking about what is good about social networks".
Instead of addressing what he did talk about, you chose to talk about something he did not. And that's the definition of a straw man:
to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition
"What is bad about social networks?" != "Can you provide a balanced picture of social networks?"
The fact that you have not given a single word to actually discussing his statements (Oh, because you agree? Hmm...), except defending your initial argument (based on the olde and extremely valuable "because!"), actually not even responding to my critique of that argument, shows that you are not interested in the discussion, you are only interested in being right. You've made a mistake in your understanding of the article and made a bad argument against it that I and others clearly saw for what it is. Get over it.
Actually, I don't know why I bother anymore. If what I (and a couple other commenters) have said before doesn't convince you, I reckon nothing will.