Untitled

<PersonA> I'd find it all much more amusing if I hadn't just wiped Google Maps from my phone for being spyware

 

        A1.) PersonA makes the initial statement.

       

<PersonB> Why are people so friggin paranoid about google

<PersonB> They are providing a free service

 

        B1.) PersonB reveals some insecurities. This could mean two things:

        B2.) Their confidence in their position has weakened.

        B3.) They feel their position itself has weakened.

 

<PersonA> I'm sorry wat

<PersonB> " wiped Google Maps from my phone for being spyware"

<PersonA> you seriously don't see the problem with putting an uninstallable app on a smartphone that phones home your GPS coordinates constantly

<PersonA> you don't see the issue with that

 

        C1.) PersonA reveals they're not used to this sort of argument.

        C2.) They may be new to this course of thought.

        C3.) They may generally lack confidence in there ability to present

                an argument.

 

<PersonA> it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you

 

        D1.) PersonA attempts to diffuse the situation with humor.

       

<PersonB> -_-

 

        E1.) This is personal to PersonA. Rationale discourse is unlikely.

 

<PersonB> What would Google want with you?

 

        F1.) PersonB is drawn to this conflict for an unknown reason.

        F2.) They're ego is attached to the conflict, perhaps the specific product.

       

 

<PersonA> everything

<PersonA> they want to know everything about everyone

<PersonA> it's their business model I daresay

<PersonA> if you're not creeped out you're not paying attention

<PersonA> seriously, I'd love to hear you justify phoning home GPS coordinates with no opt out

<PersonA> I'm strapping myself in, Bill Hicks style here

 

        G1.) PersonA expresses a surprisingly strong connection to there position.

        G2.) It now appears they are thoughtful, and willing to argue there point.

 

<PersonB> edited, It's not like they are trying to track you down and kill you

 

        [ Logical Fallacies Detected ]

        H1.) Stawman argument. See: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

                PersonA never indicated a belief that Google was trying to kill him.

        H2.) Hyberbole (def'n: extravagant exaggeration)

        H3.) Ad hominem attack: PersonB is framing PersonA as paranoid or delusional.

 

<PersonA> so what

 

        I1.) Detects the logical fallacy and attempts in primitive fashion to get

        the conversation back on track.

 

<PersonB> So who cares

<PersonA> so according to you, stalking someone is okay as long as you stalk everyone else too and don't kill them

<PersonA> your world sounds like a fun place to live

<PersonA> I can't believe you're actually defending them

 

        J1.) PersonA indicates they are not used to defending these arguments.

        J2.) Opposition shouldn't shock the sensabilities in debate, it should

        be expected.

 

<PersonB> How are they stalking? They are providing a free service that is useful. They have to get something out of it.

 

        [ Logical Fallacies Detected ]

        K.) Strawman argument: PersonA never denied the service was useful, or free.

 

<PersonA> what free service might that be

 

        L1.) PersonA again demonstrates incompitent defence of his supposition by

        attacking PersonA's strawman.

 

<PersonB> Search

<PersonB> Maps

<PersonB> Almost everything they do

 

        M1.) PersonB demonstrates experience in presenting this type of argument,

        showing stream-of-conciousness style posts, as opposed to cohesive blocks

        delineating clear thoughts.

 

<PersonA> are you deaf

<PersonA> IT IS NOT OPT OUT

 

        N1.) PersonA now resorts to ad hominem attacks of a most direct kind.

 

<PersonB> So

 

        O1.) PersonB can easily dismiss firther arguments from PersonA - who has degenerated

        into rhetoric.

 

<PersonA> the mere fact of having an android phone means a asstonne of data getting shipped over MY connection that I AM PAYING FOR, back to Google, with NO WAY of turning this behavior off without deep hacing

<PersonA> if this were the case with a desktop OS you would squeal like a stuck pig

 

        P1.) PersonB settles into a merely defensive stance, easily parrying PersonA's rhetoric.

 

<PersonB> No I wouldnt

<PersonA> then you're an idiot

<PersonA> sorry

<PersonA> why, I seem to recall a big but shortlived fooferah about windows supposedly phoning home

<PersonB> How am I the idiot? I'm not the one that thinks Google is out to get him

 

        Q1.) This remark allows PersonB to refer back PersonA's initial point, creating

        the illusion of closed logic, and solid argument.

        Q2.) PersonA realistic lost cohesion in his argument by exhausting himself

        'burning down the staw man' and chasing PersonB's fallacies.

 

<PersonA> exactly

<PersonA> you hit the nail on the head

 

        R1.) PersonA mistakenly feels they've made there point recursively citing a statement

        by PersonB.

 

<PersonA> the windows thing turned out to be harmless, but the accepted principle was that if it WERE phoning home this would be a really bi scandal

<PersonA> now suddenly just because the computer is smaller means it's okay for all kinds of private data to be sent back

 

        S1.) PersonA stops engaging in rhetoric and re-inforces there initial point

        with unsubstantiated oppinion.

        S2.) This is not wholly invalid, but weak - it attempt to engage an audience

        that may or may not be sympathetic.

 

<PersonC> Ok children, if you're going to resort to name calling, I'm going to put you both down for a nap.

 

        T1.) A moderator interjects. There attention and reaction liekly fueled by

        the clearly de-railed argument.

 

<PersonA> it was a conditional name calling, and the condition was a reasonable one - not getting upset because a computer is sending back private data to the company that made the OS with no way to disable this behavior short of switching the computer off, is idiotic

 

        U1.) Some relatively solid logic, lacking reference citations, this is about

        as reasonable as arguments of this nature and venue can become.

 

<PersonA> any reasonable person instantly sees the mplicatiosn

<PersonA> *implications

 

        V1.) PersonA again engages the audience. Citing references would have lended

        credibility.

 

<PersonA> this is worse than the whole windows secure boot scandal, much worse

<PersonA> even if that were everything it's made out to be

 

        W1.) PersonB has retreated from the argument.

       

       

Final thoughts: This verbal debate is an exercise in misdirection,

logical fallicy and rhetoric. Please cite credible resources in your arguments.