Yahoo scanned customer emails for US intelligence

Post by crdb » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 3:59 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #309

crdb wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, again, attack the man instead of the argument? It's especially grating when the entire thread is about ad hominems. Saying that Scott Adams has been known to be irrational is at best tangential to the example he gives to qualify whether the Trump and Clinton campaigns are using emotional manipulation, especially ad hominem attacks, to achieve their respective goals. It's an appeal to emotion built upon an ad hom…

I suspect sooner or later you're going to try to find a way to claim that anything which merely mentions someone's argument is an ad hominem , and your entire style is close to the fallacy fallacy ("I can name an informal fallacy, therefore your argument is invalid"), but... It is perfectly fair to say "Scott Adams makes claims about himself which cannot charitably be interpreted as rational or reasonable, therefore…

Post by ubernostrum » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:02 AM UTC

crdb wrote: post #312

ubernostrum wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes. You are in fallacy fallacy territory.

"Don't listen to this man's arguments, he's in fallacy fallacy territory." Examples?

Post by chickenfries » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #313

crdb wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't listen to this man's arguments, he's in fallacy fallacy territory." Examples?

Shorn of their excess verbiage, your arguments boil down in their entirety to "here's the name of an informal fallacy, therefore you are wrong".

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:16 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #79

duaneb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as a user, I would never use a service run by Marissa Mayer again. She lost that trust for good. Realistically, this is every American company. Why trust anyone?

It is impossible to live functionally in society without trusting someone on some level.

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

johansch wrote: post #64

zzzcpan wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is definitely in cahoots with the government and probably way deeper than Yahoo. Why would you even assume otherwise, given how much ties to the government they expose to the public these days?

As a European I have to I assume all major US companies in this area are either infiltrated or willingly participating in pervasive surveillance. It's still interesting to know which companies have been actually exposed for this kind abuse of their customers' trust.