Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

If Tim Cook would actually say "yes, our green energy project has costed us N dollars so far, and it is a good thing because that's what we do and because government actually pays us back M dollars of it with that sweet taxpayer money" - that would be free market. Well, except for the taxpayer money part, but that's hardly Tim Cook's fault. Instead, no actual information was given, and people asking wrong questions were told to shut up or get out of the investment. I'm not an Apple shareholder (except as part of broad index funds) and probably never will be, but if I were, I'd like my executive to be more open and ready to answer hard questions than that. Of course, the swooning of people who had their cause supported would probably bring Cook much more in feel-good PR than actual transparency would bring him. So, the irony is he's probably doing what's good for the ROI, but not in the way his fanboys may think or like.

View on HN

> I'm not an Apple shareholder (except as part of broad index funds) and probably never will be, but if I were, I'd like my executive to be more open and ready to answer hard questions than that.

There is an interesting dynamic here however. Let's suppose arguendo that the sustainability program is money-losing in and of itself -- buying coal-generated electricity is cheaper than maintaining a wind farm (or whatever) even after the subsidies. That doesn't actually mean it has a negative ROI, because the sustainability program is good PR. It builds goodwill that spurs purchases and evangelism. And Apple needs good PR following all that business with the Chinese factory working conditions.

So now here's the trouble. If you're doing green energy for the purposes of public relations, and some troll from the burn more fossil fuels lobby starts asking you about the numbers, you can't come out and say "the numbers don't matter because it's a PR stunt" -- that wouldn't be good PR. You have to give the line about how you run a corporation with a conscience blah blah blah, because that's the line that keeps the yuppies buying Apple hardware. If you come out and say the whole sustainability initiative is to convince Green party voters to buy iPhones made in a city with soupy air in a factory with suicide nets by workers who never leave company property, or downplay the amount of money it costs you to do it, the Green party voters will hear that and not buy as many gadgets from you. The necessary line is to play up how selfless you are in doing all of this, because anything else defeats the premise.

These are climate change deniers... I don't think they are really interested in statements of fact.

Can't decide if I want to respond to this by pointing out that it is argumentum ad populum or as an ad hominem (poisoning the well) argument.

Hmmm, after much consideration, gonna go with ad hominem.

What's your point?

Incidentally, what logical arguments would you recommend one use against people who have rejected science as a legitimate world view?

I think you have a couple of problems.

1) You're obviously a troll with a 20 hour old account, so you feel like you need to get trolling early today.

2) You assume that people who disagree with you on some topic have "rejected science as a legitimate world view". You should try to reexamine this assumption, as you may find out it's invalid.

You can't "disagree" about climate change any more than you can "disagree" about heliocentrism. Also, notice that we can have a discussion despite the fact that you just threw out an ad hominem.

In a parliamentary type of meeting which share holder meetings are - move next business is one way of dumping cranks.

If the trolls whine quote Citrine (UK) or Roberts (USA) at them.

And I have used Citrine as away of keeping control of a share holder meeting.

Ad hominem can be completely appropriate if you're making a point about someone's character/credibility. I don't know why people think that ad hominem means you should never make arguments "to the man."

In this case, I think he's saying that because these are politically motivated shareholders, a reasoned answer would be lost on them. Cook could have whipped out a lengthy powerpoint full of charts and figures, or he could have done the chicken dance, or whatever ... he's saying the shareholders are not asking the question in good faith.

edit - Further, saying what you would prefer Cook do if you had asked the question isn't entirely relevant, since presumably you would be asking sincerely. Cook can probably tell those guys are only there to yank his chain and make him look foolish, so unsurprisingly he was somewhat hostile in response.

Of course, you should argue with facts and numbers only to people that agree with you. If they don't agree, it's obvious that they are stupid and evil, and thus beyond arguing. They should be just called names and told to STFU. Because nothing makes your position more compelling than refusing to address legitimate concerns - like how much the company spends on certain policy.

Maybe to see if somebody is interested in statements of fact, you should first try having the statement of fact. And not just say "well, I could drown you in facts, but since you're not worth it, I'd just resort to name calling". That looks rather unconvincing to me.

Why bother if someone else who knows more than you has tried? Clearly climate change scientists will have tried to convince them and if they can't what hope does the Apple CEO have?

Climate change scientists never tried to publish Apple financial data. And that's what we are talking about here. Nobody asked Cook to predict temperatures in Arctica in 2030. He was asked for the effect of the specific policy on company bottom line - the thing which is the job of the CEO to know. He did not give the facts, and you say that because people who asked that legitimate question are disagreeing with you on some other question it's OK to dismiss them. That's classic ad hominem, and that's exactly what's wrong with modern political discourse - instead of seeking to convince and prove, people seek to dismiss and make the opponent shut up, because there's no talking to those people anyway.

In this context, it's not an argument that Apple must win or lose. It's an inquiry that if the CEO thinks that a detailed answer is not warranted, and does not legally require further disclosure, than a CEO could legitimately decide to make a short answer. I think Cook was just cutting off an extended argument regarding climate change, a discussion that likely has low to negative value in the context of a shareholder meeting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com