[Retra]

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]

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]

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]

Essentially: Because it isn't news if it isn't 'new'.

[Retra]

Some of us actually were born yesterday, you know.