> Implying that someone is 'clumsy' is implicitly judging their physical ability. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. If someone has difficult

> Implying that someone is 'clumsy' is implicitly judging their physical ability. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. If someone has difficulty with fine motor control that's called 'clumsy'. How is that 'judging'? All I'm saying that if you're constantly dropping your phone that is a problem with you and not the phone. This is as dumb as someone in a wheelchair saying we shouldn't make bicycles anymore because they can't use them. > Those things usually don't cost hundreds of dollars AND are an everyday item. So I guess you don't wear glasses ? > No one said that people shouldn't have phones; just that their cost/risk benefit of phones has convinced them to stick beneath a certain price point. That's not what was said at all. What I am arguing against is the following statement: "Except it's really easy to accidentally destroy or lose a phone." They are making a general statement implying that people accidentally destroy or lose their phone all the time, which is simply not true. It may be true for them, but that's not what they are saying.