Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you calling me condescending, or wrong, or both? Both, it seems? But those are different arguments. Don't confuse the two. Even your reply here is condescending, good god. I'm not confusing anything. You got it right the first time, I think yoru argument is wrong, AND it's condescending. > When it comes to addiction, the evidence is clear that I am right. The problem is you making the assumption that people wan…
> 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.…
No, that's purely an issue with your interpretation. Drop your assumptions and look at it more objectively, if you can.
> Right now, the best way to support it is to counter your claim.
My claim is that your claim is wrong, lol. Don't try this slippery snakeoil salesman crap, please.
You're making the claim that "a lot" of people would enjoy their food better if they didn't have their phones with them, or were not allowed to use them. I'm sure you'll be pedantic and correct this, but regardless of your reply that's the general point you've made.
The basis for this claim is your belief that most of these people have an addiction. That's an unsubstantiated assumption.
For your claim to hold water, you can't just assume addiction, you need to prove addiction, since that's the foundation of your claim.
> I made extra sure you were doubling down
I'm not doubling down on anything. I'm simply telling you your assumptions are unfounded and that you are wrong AND condescending to assume so. I really hope emphasizing that 'and' helped assuage your confusion on that point.
> If you do want to agree with me that yes lots of people have immediate preferences that make them unhappy after a few hours
That wasn't your claim, and it's disingenuous to make it more abstract to try and defend it. It was your specific claim that I took objection to, not this abstracted significantly less specific version.
> It's an instance of a more general problem: people are not always good at planning and impulses.
There's also the issue of people like yourselves insisting they know peoples preferences better then they do. You don't seem to understand that your own preferences don't necessarily map to other people in the way you assume. Have you considered you're an outlier in a way that has nothing to do with addiction?
> 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.
It wasn't deliberate or malicious, it was just because I was typing instead of copying and pasting. As far as my argument is concerned, the quantity difference between 'most' and 'a lot' is irrelevant - the issue is you're insisting you know better than a group of strangers, regardless of if that group is "a lot" of people or most people.