This is a great example of exactly the kind of opinion-setting Bruce is talking about. I think it's pretty clear that services like Google are hardly optional in this day in age, especially when it comes to making a living i.e. eating, which brings us right back to the feudalism allegory.
There's nothing to disagree with in the OP's comment or your comment. Because they are just refusing to accept any of the facts of the article. It's pointless to engage you because you will never try to directly refute evidence, but will instead attempt to distract and dramatize. I've seen this rhetorical style a million times; it's very formulaic.
This kind of head-in-the-sand, denial-comment like the OP is exactly the same rhetorical style that Israel used in the Lebanon war on Reddit. Is the OP an actual agent with opinion setting agenda? Does it matter? Our only option is to be aware of common fallacious argument methods, and do our research.
This entire comment is a non-sequitur. I can't even figure out what part of my comment it replies to. Are you sure you replied to the right comment? That's a mistake I sometimes make.
Perhaps you should reread your comment then read mine to help you grok. I could say the same about your comment. What does the authors comfort have to do with anything? You simply ignored their source refuting that these services are optional and attacked the author.
At least I'm actually talking about the subject and you continue to offer nothing but passive aggressive Ad hominem attacks. I'm not at all surprised and I anticipate another comment from you along the same lines.
Oh, that's easy: I think you should feel a little uncomfortable telling someone else you think they're being misleading, because it's another way of saying they're being deliberately deceptive, which is not something you'd say to their face.
I'm sure it's something I've said too, and if I was called out on it, I'd like to think I'd agree and amend my comment.
It is a little strange to call that point out as "ad hominem", for whatever it's worth.
There's nothing to disagree with in the OP's comment or your comment. Because they are just refusing to accept any of the facts of the article. It's pointless to engage you because you will never try to directly refute evidence, but will instead attempt to distract and dramatize. I've seen this rhetorical style a million times; it's very formulaic.
This kind of head-in-the-sand, denial-comment like the OP is exactly the same rhetorical style that Israel used in the Lebanon war on Reddit. Is the OP an actual agent with opinion setting agenda? Does it matter? Our only option is to be aware of common fallacious argument methods, and do our research.