reitzensteinm called the chief "intellectually dishonest", and did not properly support that strong claim. That is bad for the discussion. None of the arguments/claims you are making change that fact.
I said his method of debate was intellectually dishonest. Not the man or his opinion on the matter. For all I know he thoroughly researched the topic and weighed both sides before reaching his conclusions.
But his argument was clearly fallacious. In one sentence, he implies that correlation proves causation, followed by an attempt to frame the debate on his terms by definitively dismissing the claims of the opposition.
These are not tactics used in honest debate. They're being used to discredit the opposition and sway third parties.
I see that as cut and dry. If you don't, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I stand by what I said, and its relevance to this discussion.
That's really splitting hairs. The man said "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken".
In other words, he says that innovation is occuring at a rapid rate, therefore the patent system isn't broken. Sure, that's not him arguing via correlation, but nonetheless that's a logical fallacy. And that's intellectually dishonest.
We may not be able to know whether he's being intellectually dishonest until we know what he "really thinks," but he is absolutely using a spotlight fallacy.
But his argument was clearly fallacious. In one sentence, he implies that correlation proves causation, followed by an attempt to frame the debate on his terms by definitively dismissing the claims of the opposition.
These are not tactics used in honest debate. They're being used to discredit the opposition and sway third parties.
I see that as cut and dry. If you don't, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I stand by what I said, and its relevance to this discussion.