> Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic.
This is a straw man argument, as that was not my argument, and I was not shaming Musk. I was merely speculating:
>> Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath...
"Maybe" is salient here, meaning "there is the mere possibility that..."
> All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever?
Yet more straw man argument. How does Amazon enter into this?
> That is not how charity works.
Now your straw man has taken over. You introduced and claim this is charity, but I was describing something else entirely.
> You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
Still more straw man fallacy punctuated by ad hominem attack. If you can't comprehend and speak to my words, but only attack me, then your argument is fallacious and not worthy of being entertained other than to call it what it is, straw man arguments and personal insults.
This is a straw man argument, as that was not my argument, and I was not shaming Musk. I was merely speculating:
>> Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath...
"Maybe" is salient here, meaning "there is the mere possibility that..."
> All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever?
Yet more straw man argument. How does Amazon enter into this?
> That is not how charity works.
Now your straw man has taken over. You introduced and claim this is charity, but I was describing something else entirely.
> You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
Still more straw man fallacy punctuated by ad hominem attack. If you can't comprehend and speak to my words, but only attack me, then your argument is fallacious and not worthy of being entertained other than to call it what it is, straw man arguments and personal insults.