> Even your reply here is condescending, good god.
Because you keep phrasing things as if wrong and condescending are the same, and it makes it annoying to respond to your claims.
> The problem is you making the assumption that people wanting to use their phone at a restaurant are suffering from addition.
> That's the claim you need to support.
I don't need to cite phone studies when I can counter your main argument.
You made an extremely general argument that I'm wrong if I say any preferences a bunch of people have are making them unhappy. I made extra sure you were doubling down and making a claim so strong.
And addiction disproves it.
If you want to go back to just dinner, you need to make a new argument that isn't entirely based on whether you think I'm condescending. And at this point I don't have much patience or belief you'll actually listen to me.
If you do want to agree with me that yes lots of people have immediate preferences that make them unhappy after a few hours, but you think phones at dinner are an exception to that, then I guess we could talk about why you think that, and I'm open to hearing why.
But any argument that says people are always right about what they want? Nah.
I don't think I need to build a ground-up argument that only applies to phones. It's an instance of a more general problem: people are not always good at planning and impulses. If you object to the general argument, then I only need to disprove your objection.
> Yes, I'm sure that was the reason.
If you won't believe me then there's not much I can do, but it's true. I've had people ignore a critical part of my argument over and over. If someone misquotes me, I will point it out.
By the way, do you have a reason you kept misquoting my argument? I feel like you should have to defend that instead just attacking me for correcting you.