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.
Hmmm, after much consideration, gonna go with ad hominem.
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.
Incidentally, what logical arguments would you recommend one use against people who have rejected science as a legitimate world view?
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.
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.