Is this relevant? I don't agree with him about Snowden, but I don't see why his view on a political issue should be related to his view on burn rates. People can be wrong about some things and right about others. Everybody is wrong about some things -- but we cannot write off everything that everybody says, because sometimes people are right.
Yes, he's complimentary, but as someone who often agrees with Gruber, even I found that part a little jarring. I think he's mostly right on this one, but if anything, too conservative about the potential for the Fire.
why do you think that he is necessarily wrong. After I read his memo, I would say it is debatable, not wrong. In fact you're attitude is a very clear sign of the silence culture being pushed.
No one has said it's a refutation but it's entirely relevant and not an ad hominem at all - unless you think that his record is something to be ashamed of?
As I said above:
> So when an oil company writes a report on the viability of solar power then that doesn't affect how we should view the report?
> His motivation absolutely affects how he reports on this issue. He's not a neutral observer and so he picks and chooses which facts he includes and puts his own spin around the issues.
I don't agree with all of his assertions nor all of his reasoning, primarily because I think he completely glosses over any reasonable opinion that is contrary to the viewpoint he wants to present (for example, the relationship between child pornography and child molestation[1]). I think completely glossing over these items is disingenuous and hurts his cause.
This is a difference in degree, only, though, because, even if everything else he said was wrong, this part was not:
Child pornography is horrible and awful from every angle and in every aspect. But it is not dangerous to the fabric of society. Censorship and electronic book burning, however, is.
Mostly because I know his opinion is based only on the "other sides" "political propaganda". And he probably wouldn't appreciate it, but it is always a good thing to read and educate yourself on the opposing view. If anything, to increase your resolve and have better points to argue your position.
Personally his opinion worries me. He claimed there was no reason for encryption in communication unless you are doing something "bad".
I think a) the snark is unnecessary and b) you are mistaking disagreement with ignorance. From what I read in that issue, he did understand the point pretty well (from a technical standpoint), he just disagrees with the proposed solution (from a mainly political standpoint). You should be able to disagree with people without claiming malice or ignorance.
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that his opinions are a) wrong and b) delivered with right-wing spin. As such, you should not take what he says about matters political at face value.
To be honest, he also has an article arguing the opposite. Probably he wanted to present both sides of the coin, but i find this particular article to be very wrong.
reply