Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
Oh, I did win the argument. You’re objectively wrong. You hating smart glasses, or them being massive walking invasions of privacy, doesn’t make them “useless toys”. A thing can be bad without being useless. That’s a literally childish understanding of concepts.
I never claimed you strawmaned their argument, I stated you strawmaned the function of smart glasses by comparing to a “useless toy”. Which you objectively did. That isn’t up for debate. That’s a fact.
Smart glasses are, objectively, not useless. Calling them that IS a strawman, and it does very much seem to be based on a childish belief that if the thing you’re talking about is overall bad, then EVERYTHING about it must be bad.
Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
You literally sound like a boomer complaining about Smart phones, describing them as “useless toys”
If it makes you happy you can think you won the argument
Oh, I did win the argument. You’re objectively wrong. You hating smart glasses, or them being massive walking invasions of privacy, doesn’t make them “useless toys”. A thing can be bad without being useless. That’s a literally childish understanding of concepts.
See my previous comment about strawmanning, mr. “I learned about logical fallacies 5 days ago”
EDIT: So mad you come and check the replies within 5 minutes just to downvote?
I never claimed you strawmaned their argument, I stated you strawmaned the function of smart glasses by comparing to a “useless toy”. Which you objectively did. That isn’t up for debate. That’s a fact.
Smart glasses are, objectively, not useless. Calling them that IS a strawman, and it does very much seem to be based on a childish belief that if the thing you’re talking about is overall bad, then EVERYTHING about it must be bad.
Reply point by point:
Can you read? If yes, read my previous comment.
Also, if you’re gonna be a dick, I’m just gonna block you. Piss off, and I sincerely hope you have truly awful day.
Well, you never actually addressed the points. But if expecting that is “being a dick”, well, whatever…
Ah yes. Marvelous argement. I’m right, because I say I’m right1
1: Source: Me.
Truly, a masterclass of debate, I am humbled.