3 ms·

This is exactly the kind of absurd, completely surreal type of argumentation I’m talking about. You’re literally comparing a smartphone to one of the most dange

by hnarn 6y ago

This is exactly the kind of absurd, completely surreal type of argumentation I’m talking about. You’re literally comparing a smartphone to one of the most dangerous and addictive opioids available, responsible for 15 000 overdose deaths annually in the US alone. And in case you perhaps didn’t actually read my comment, I pointed out the fact that I was one of those people who visited grocery stores in the 90s, which is why I know that doing it today is easier than it was back then. That’s the whole point. Falling back on childish exaggeration like “oh I wonder how ANYONE managed to do this before” obviously doesn’t disprove the fact that what was possible before is now still possible but easier.

coldtea 6y ago
>This is exactly the kind of absurd, completely surreal type of argumentation I’m talking about. You’re literally comparing a smartphone to one of the most dangerous and addictive opioids available, responsible for 15 000 overdose deaths annually in the US alone. You've missed the whole point. I'm answering the crap argument "Phones have value. That’s why people use them." - showing that people use things that don't have value (and can even be hamrful) all the time. It's not about the relative danger of phone vs heroin. It's about "people use it, thus it has value" is a crap argument. In fact, I also included fast food (which people don't overdose from), on my counter-argument, which you conveniently ignored. >And in case you perhaps didn’t actually read my comment, I pointed out the fact that I was one of those people who visited grocery stores in the 90s, which is why I know that doing it today is easier than it was back then. That’s the whole point. No, the whole point is that it's only marginally easier, to the point of hardly being worth it just for those kind of conveniences, while creating its own problems, which can have a much worse impact in one's life than "I missed the grocery store open times"... http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130090041.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130090041.h... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853217300159 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235285321...

by hnarn 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>This is exactly the kind of absurd, completely surreal type of argumentation I’m talking about. You’re literally comparing a smartphone to one of the most dangerous and addictive opioids available, responsible for 15 000 overdose deaths annually in the US alone. You've missed the whole point. I'm answering the crap argument "Phones have value. That’s why people use them." - showing that people use things that don't have value (and can even be hamrful) all the time. It's not about the relative danger of phone vs heroin. It's about "people use it, thus it has value" is a crap argument. In fact, I also included fast food (which people don't overdose from), on my counter-argument, which you conveniently ignored. >And in case you perhaps didn’t actually read my comment, I pointed out the fact that I was one of those people who visited grocery stores in the 90s, which is why I know that doing it today is easier than it was back then. That’s the whole point. No, the whole point is that it's only marginally easier, to the point of hardly being worth it just for those kind of conveniences, while creating its own problems, which can have a much worse impact in one's life than "I missed the grocery store open times"... http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130090041.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130090041.h... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853217300159 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235285321...