Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:A sad day (Score 1) 1116

I did read the whole article. You keep falsely claiming that I am a racist, apparently associating me with that 'third party' guy, in an attempt to assassinate my character when I describe my interpretation of Apple's policy. That is a move described pretty precisely by the abusive type of argumentum ad hominem from the Wikipedia article, which is no different than what is described in many text books (regardless of you threat to edit it to spread even more of your lies). That is not 'cherry picking'. That is basic reading comprehension, which you need to utilise in these arguments. You keep calling me juvenile names ('fucking racist') as if that adds in any way to the argument, which is exactly the behaviour I was referencing when I said your main tool of argument is a basic logical fallacy. You only continue to prove my point.

Comment Re:A sad day (Score 1) 1116

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

You call people racist, as if that has any bearing on the logic of their argument. Aka: argumentum ad hominem

Comment Re:A sad day (Score 1) 1116

Beyond that, I don't even know what you and I are arguing about at this point, other than that I resent that racism is being inserted into a situation where it wasn't a factor.

Don't bother, all he is doing in inserting racism into this. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a racist, valid point or not, even if there is no racism present. Ad hominem fallacy is his main tool of argument.

Comment Re:ONE SIDE (Score 1) 1116

It a nice argument because it is based on the facts I have. From what I have seen of the story, the clerk knew she was planning on sending the controlled product to a banned country. That is illegal from my understanding of the law, and apparently Apple's lawyers agree with me enough to make a policy banning such activity. Calling me racist is only an ad hominem attack, not sound a sound argument. You may disagree with the policy of the embargo against Iran, but that doesn't make the clerk bigoted. It makes him prudent. You may be willing to break the law to supply belligerent countries with goods. Some people aren't willing to take that risk. It certainly doesn't make them brave, but it also doesn't make them bad people either. Iran is openly hostile to America and American people, why should we support them? If Americans do not send Iran candy, iPads, and missiles, does that make America evil? You call it racism, I call it good politics.

Comment Re:Poetic Justice (Score 1) 1116

Or, it is possible she said all those, hoping for sympathy if only she could think of the proper sob story of who she was sending it to? For example: Oh, I'm sending it to my cousin. No? Ok, well really I'm sending it to my uncle so he can learn to read? No? Ok, I meant to say I am sending it to my sick grandmother so she can play games while she is sick in the hospital. No? Fine, I'll go get the media, they'll like my drama. We are only getting one side of the story from a drama queen who openly admits that what she intended to do was against Apple's policy.

Comment Re:ONE SIDE (Score 1) 1116

What she did was legal (she didn't get the iPad after all). What you miss is that what she intended to do was illegal. What she was buying was a piece of technology containing cryptography software. If the clerk had sold the iPad while he knew what she intended to do, he would have broken company policy and the law.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats