| Eben Moglen was asked "What's so bad about Social Networks?". Then he talked about what he thinks is bad about social networks. 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. |