This is such a bullshit argument. Yes it probably has some validity as any non-trivial invention has prior art, but the Wright Brothers invented most of the fun

This is such a bullshit argument. Yes it probably has some validity as any non-trivial invention has prior art, but the Wright Brothers invented most of the fundamentals of their aircraft, and the ones they didn't invent were usually the first time that innovation was tried in regards to flight. Their practical competitors at the time were able to make hops and jaunts but ultimately unable to do proper controlled fight and their designs often were very different than the workable Wright design. See the Clement Ader's steam-powered bat-like plane for an example. The Wrights designed the gas engine (with the help of Charles Taylor), the airframe was of their own design, and a propeller of their own design. This is a significant number of innovations all at once. While its arguable on whether others should get credit here, its clear that this really is a rare case of a lot of different innovations producing the "invention." If you're going to compare yourself to someone to defend a "we all stand on the shoulders of giants" argument, I doubt the Wright Brothers are a good example for this. They weren't standing on too many shoulders back in 1900. Flight was just too new.