A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.

  • Devial@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      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?

      • Devial@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Reply point by point:

          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.

          • Devial@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            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.

            • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Well, you never actually addressed the points. But if expecting that is “being a dick”, well, whatever…

          • Devial@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            Ah yes. Marvelous argement. I’m right, because I say I’m right1

            1: Source: Me.

            Truly, a masterclass of debate, I am humbled.