You apparently do not understand what a strawman argument even is...
Allow me to educate you:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Fallacy: Straw Man
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
- Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
- "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
- Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
I never attacked your position, nor did I claim your position was false - I simply stated a fact, which was what you said, and I quote (and will continue to quote since you seem to insist on being pedantic)
...hmmmm...almost sounds like something that could make an unknowing consumer believe that they "NEED TO PURCHASE" a "NEW" computer or "SERVICE"...
Service perhaps - mostly these "finally fast PC" adverts and such. The problem is the operating system itself, and the code therein - a new computer would not necessarily fix that (unless they went to a different OS)
Again, given the previous posts in the thread, and indeed another ongoing discussion in this very sub-forum, it seemed reasonable to me that you were referring to either A) the threat vector previously discussed or B) the discussion about what Kaspersky Labs found in the hard drives, which represents another attack vector.
As such, my reply was simply that of fact... which you took offense to:
...re-read my Post, Kittamaru!
...possibly take note of the "unknowing consumer" that I mentioned.
If everyone was truly computer savvy...these "bugs" would be a Non-Issue.
A proficient computer technician/programmer knows as much.
I acknowledged that fact here:
True, true - the thing is though, things like this and the recent NSA spyware find... they would be on ALL computers - even buying a new one, it'd seem just as 'slow' as the other
Which is where I mentioned the NSA Spyware - I never claimed YOU said anything about it. At which point you got defensive
Sorry, Kittamaru...but if you must insist on arguing with yourself...would you please do it without "quoting" my Posts.
In none of my Posts did I say anything about 'spyware' being "ON" or "NOT ON" any, let alone, "ALL" computers.
I didn't claim you DID say anything about it, and thus I responded
Then what are you arguing would cause the "unsavvy consumer" to buy a new PC? Do you mean the "broken" websites from web-code changes?
I apologize - I thought you were referencing the recent discovery that there was tracking capability built into the firmware of hard drives shipping from the factory.
at which point you accuse me of putting words in your mouth
I am "arguing" nothing, Kittamaru.
I simply made a comment : "...hmmmm...almost sounds like something that could make an unknowing consumer believe that they "NEED TO PURCHASE" a "NEW" computer or "SERVICE"...", nothing more.
I stated/typed "could make an unknowing consumer"...and that is what is displayed in my 'browser'.
Possibly, "would cause the "unsavvy consumer" is what gets displayed in your 'browser'?
Note, in your post #8:
...re-read my Post, Kittamaru!
...possibly take note of the "unknowing consumer" that I mentioned.
If everyone was truly computer savvy...these "bugs" would be a Non-Issue.
A proficient computer technician/programmer knows as much.
Again, Kittamaru, I did not state/mention/type anything about any "..."broken" websites from web-code changes".
It would be nice if you would choose to put words into the mouths of any other "Member" than myself. Like I said, I am not "ARGUING" anything.
If you, Kittamaru, feel such a compulsion to "ARGUE"...please do it without "quoting" my Posts...PLEASE??
Then what are you posting, if not a discussion? This is not a personal blog... if you make a post, expect people to reply to it.
Kittamaru, If I was "referencing the recent discovery that there was tracking capability built into the firmware of hard drives shipping from the factory."...then there is every possibility that I would have stated/mentioned/typed something like that in my Posts.
Kittamaru, I did not state/mention/type anything "referencing the recent discovery that there was tracking capability built into the firmware of hard drives shipping from the factory.", So...again you appear to be Trol...er...Trying to "ARGUE WITH YOURSELF".
Please, Kittamaru, would you PLEASE do so...without 'quoting" my Posts...PLEASE???
Thank you!
I never, nowhere, said you DID - I said that I believed you were referencing it, and I even apologized for being mistaken.
If you are still "confused", well... at this point, I can't help you much.
EDIT - and for the record - yes, at this point, I am a bit miffed at your hostility and baseless accusations...
