This is especially important as there are secure elements that are critical to iPhone security that have to be handled correctly. I trust Apple to get it right.
Which secure elements are you concerned about, and please be specific? Is replacing the screen putting you at risk? How about the charging chip?
This is really infuriating, but maybe we get what we deserve - you can literally take away people's essentials rights to do with their property as they see fit, and they will cheer for it! This, I find, is a good overview:
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
Apple is free to have the repair policies they like, and I am free to buy or not buy Apple with their repair policies forming one of the inputs for my decision.
Apple will always exist as the primary place people go to get their products fixed... regardless if other people have the right to repair them or not.
Apple aside, we need to be able to fix and repair the things we own. That vastly outweighs any oh-so-shady non-Apple vendors.
Otherwise how do you feel about the regular person selling you a device that might have internal usage damage not apparent yet on the surface ? I feel a button that is about to fail, a screen that has been beaten enough to be near its end of life are as much of more probable as a repair shop setting defective parts on its customers devices.
This is not about whether you are allowed to find out whether a phone was repaired by Apple and then potentially refuse to buy it, this is about whether other people are allowed to have their phone repaired by parties other than Apple if that is what they would like to do.
Do you always, without exception, study every single line of terms and conditions of every purchase you make and every service you use until you have completely understood the legal implications of all of them before you actually enter into a contract? Or have you ever agreed to a contract without that level of investigation?
Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes.
EDIT: Oops, misread the second question. Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation.
What about it isn't simple?
> At best it is loaded
What about it is loaded?
> and unnecessarily complex.
What about it is unnecessarily complex?
> Yes, of course I have agreed to contracts without that level of investigation.
OK.
So, suppose in one of those contracts there was a clause that you weren't aware of that said that you would be required to hand over all or any of your property to the other party on request.
Do you think that that should be enforceable? If you think it shouldn't, why not? Especially so considering that you were free to not enter into that contract, therefore you, arguably, would not be forced to hand over your property when this clause is being enforced.
The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot.
If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.
That's ... not what a loaded question is? A loaded question is a question that presupposes as fact that for which no agreement exists, which is why it is fallacious. Setting up a scenario to support one's own position is exactly the opposite of that: It's the honest thing to do.
Also, what exactly is wrong with a reductio ad absurdum? It's certainly not a fallacy!?
> The contractual clause in your example would be unenforceable so your point is moot.
When someone asks you "do you think that X should/should not be legal", answering "X is/is not legal" is a fallacy known as dodging the question. Ironic given how much you seem to dislike fallacies that aren't even fallacies!?
> If you want to debate the matter maturely then I’m all ears, but if you just want to shoe horn my words to make ridiculous non-points then I see little point continuing.
"maturely" as in I may only make arguments that agree with your position (because you seem to object to logically valid arguments simply because they contradict your position), while you are free to use fallacies as it suits you (which is what you have done)? I think that's the kind of approach that I would generally use the label "immature" for, but I guess labelling that as "mature" fits right in with you being the one to use all the fallacious arguments?!
Anyway; do I always? Hell no. Have I ever? To the best of my ability, many times, yes.