How are your questions legitimate if you yourself state that they are tainted with 'condescension' and 'rhetoric'?
As was already explained to you, simply because a question is not phrased in a manner to your liking, does mean the content of what the question is asking is without merit. This is not a difficult distinction to make, if you are able to grasp the difference between content and form.
'Rhetoric' is not a quote from anything I wrote, adding something like that is either a desperate attempt to bolster your point or inept writing.
How can you judge my statements as 'shallow' in my little snippet of words without having a deeper discussion on the topic.
Simple, your initial post had little to no justification for your multiple assertions, a trait your subsequent posts share. It's no one's job but your own to engage in supporting your own point of view. Discussion comes out of questioning. You don't legitimately question anything, you simply throw labels and assertions around and bark about fallacies when being criticized for it. From your initial post:
My take is the following...
It is really the government's responsibility to enforce laws and environmental regulations. It's a little disingenuous for the BBC to lay all the blame at Apple's feet...
[socio-econoimic problems] must be solved at the governmental level and at the intra-governmental level...
[it's] unfair targeting just one company...
If you are offended by this documentary then you should literally not buy the majority of goods on the shelves of your local stores in Western countries. Let's not be naive
So you've given us all your answers/conclusions with no understanding as to why or how you got there and anyone who doesn't follow the same line of thinking is cast as "naive" by you. Qualifying this as discussion is an insult to the meaning of the word.
My ad-hiominem attacks reflect self-righteous and self-described 'condescension' in your own writing.
An easy way to test this idea is to look at your interactions with others instead of just myself. I've already pointed to how you've broadly labeled others that disagree with your assertions as "naive," but this is an ad hominem you've used in specific posts as well, with me and TimelessOne. You've also labeled Lankyman as unobjective for failing to agree with you. In fact it seems your general engagement with opposing views is less respectable than your constant indignation would have us believe.
You can continue to cloak yourself in the appearance of argument. The fact is I wasn't arguing with you. In fact you targeted me to drive your own agenda instead of having the courage to stand on your own two feet.
The only agenda I have is to question your claims, but I think you are doing a far better job casting doubt on them than me, by repeatedly engaging in attempts at deriding my character (shown above) while failing to buttress any part of your argument.
Perfect 'straw-man'. The statement I made was, "Why is the BBC focussing on Apple as if this was all the responsibility of Apple.
Well that's a straw-man. Simply because they focus on Apple it does not follow that they are implying it is "all" the responsibility of Apple. They are simply questioning Apples responsibility given its financial stake in creating the problem and in its stated intentions to do better which seems not only reasonable but fair.
It's a little disingenuous for the BBC to lay all the blame at Apple's feet."
This is a straw-man as well. They don't lay all the blame at Apple's feet. There are more than a few references to other tech companies doing the same thing as well as discussion about the lack of government regulation and oversight. Apple is simply the focus of the piece. Having focus allows detail to be given and understood as opposed to broad blanket assertions (you know about those).
Can you tell me where I've said that it is not the job of corporations to have oversight and only the job of governments, as you state?
Another straw-man. I didn't state that you said it was "only" the job of governments but it's fair to say you minimize the responsibility of corporations. See below:
Apple is not a government...These are large scale socio-economic problems that cannot be solved by one company. They must be solved at the governmental level and at the intra-governmental level.
Am I mistaken is saying that it is the job of governments to uphold laws and environmental regulations?
Straw-man. It is also the responsibility of citizens, corporate or otherwise to follow them.
Where have I said that large transnational corporations shouldn't be scrutinized?
You clearly show very little sympathy with the scrutiny of Apple and bemoan the fact they are when you state:
These are large scale socio-economic problems that cannot be solved by one company. They must be solved at the governmental level and at the intra-governmental level.
If you are offended by this documentary then you should literally not buy the majority of goods on the shelves of your local stores in Western countries. Let's not be naive.
You're talk about Apple's role in shaping government policy is ad-hoc at best. You're shifting context to create new meaning.
This doesn't fall under ad-hoc, maybe you mean irrelevant. In either case, you're the one that wants to focus on governmental responsibility. How is the inclusion of ways in which corporations influence governmental oversight and regulation outside the purview? You might as well say, I'd like to understand how the earth revolves around the sun without knowing anything about gravity.
I admonished the BBC for unfairly targeting Apple (it could have been any company) without targeting any other 'stakeholders' of the problems that they raised. There's clearly an ethical issue here. Where is the fallacy? My point is that the issue is far greater than attributing blame to a single stakeholder.
The fallacy, as has already been pointed out to you, is the ad hominem you are making against the speaker. In this case the BBC. Simply because the BBC focuses on the wrongdoing of one wrongdoer does not mean it is excusing other wrong-doing or wrong-doers, pointing to this is simply a way for you to try and dismiss the credibility of the speaker without giving consideration to what is said.
It is not the job of every piece of journalism that unearths wrong doing to cover that kind of wrong doing in the same detail across all cases of its uses or else it some how loses its validity. Your charge that the piece is "sensational" or of lower standards, "accuracy," "nuance," "fairness," etc is nonsensical and ridiculous.
Whitewashing would probably be a more apt description.
It's a little hypocritical of you, given that you describe your own writing as condescending, to accuse me of casting insults. And don't try and cast your so-called 'challenge' as anything more than a self-rightous attempt to project yourself as 'holier than thou'...The characteristics of the documentary and your own standards line up 100%
Again you're attributing quotes to me that don't exist and you're conflating an understanding of condescending (as in, being beneath oneself, acting superior) with an ad hominem attack. They are two separate things and different. Given the number of times you've linked the definition of ad hominem one might think you've actually read it by now. One attacks the speaker (ad hominem) in place of an argument, while the other neither attacks the speaker nor refuses to engage in argument it just simply notifies the reader that the discourse doesn't engage at a meaningful level.
This disposition shouldn't surprise you given your refusal to defend much if any of the assertions you've made. Your posts routinely question character before they ever question argument as evidenced above and throughout this thread.
If you'd like to attribute anything to my standards you might notice the way I hold myself accountable for what I've said and my tendency to malign arguments before people.
