[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.