4 ms·

> I said a lot. Not most. Sigh. Do you find being pedantic like this productive, honestly? Fine, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption about a lot of

> I said a lot. Not most. Sigh. Do you find being pedantic like this productive, honestly? Fine, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption about a lot of people. Happy? > but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time. No, it isn't. This is purely your preference. > Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong? In this case dealing with subjective preferences it absolutely is, and you absolutely are. > I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong. Those topics would likely be far more objective in nature, as opposed to dealing with individual preferences as is the case here. > I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it. So make your argument instead of just insisting you're right. Let's see the evidence.

Dylan16807 2y ago
You seem to be objecting to the entire idea of people en masse having preferences that screw up their own enjoyment? Cool, that's super easy to prove. Ignore dinners, go look at the science of addiction. I can link the Wikipedia page if you want, it's full of links to evidence. Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. There's a ton of statements that are true of 5% of people but it would be ridiculous to suggest it's a majority.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > You seem to be objecting to the entire idea of people en masse having preferences that screw up their own enjoyment? No, I'm objecting to the idea that you think you know what people would enjoy more than they do themselves, for any amount of people barring maybe close friends and family. It's incredibly condescending. > Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. It is when you already clarified it twice and it wasn't pertinent to the main point I was making, repeated above in this very comment.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > No, I'm objecting to the idea that you think you know what people would enjoy more than they do themselves, for any amount of people barring maybe close friends and family. It's incredibly condescending. Are you calling me condescending, or wrong, or both? Both, it seems? But those are different arguments. Don't confuse the two. When it comes to addiction, the evidence is clear that I am right. In my opinion if it's both true and impersonal, then it's not condescending. And I'm being as impersonal and nonjudgemental as I can here. But if "condescending" is your only objection then good enough I made my point. > It is when you already clarified it twice and it wasn't pertinent to the main point I was making, repeated above in this very comment. When you ignore the clarification, I worry you didn't see/understand/internalize it. The levels of proof are very different, so that makes me say it again to make sure we're on the same page.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > 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 wanting to use their phone at a restaurant are suffering from addition. That's the claim you need to support. > so that makes me say it again to make sure we're on the same page. Yes, I'm sure that was the reason.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > 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.

Dylan16807 2y ago

You seem to be objecting to the entire idea of people en masse having preferences that screw up their own enjoyment? Cool, that's super easy to prove. Ignore dinners, go look at the science of addiction. I can link the Wikipedia page if you want, it's full of links to evidence. Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. There's a ton of statements that are true of 5% of people but it would be ridiculous to suggest it's a majority.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> You seem to be objecting to the entire idea of people en masse having preferences that screw up their own enjoyment? No, I'm objecting to the idea that you think you know what people would enjoy more than they do themselves, for any amount of people barring maybe close friends and family. It's incredibly condescending. > Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. It is when you already clarified it twice and it wasn't pertinent to the main point I was making, repeated above in this very comment.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > No, I'm objecting to the idea that you think you know what people would enjoy more than they do themselves, for any amount of people barring maybe close friends and family. It's incredibly condescending. Are you calling me condescending, or wrong, or both? Both, it seems? But those are different arguments. Don't confuse the two. When it comes to addiction, the evidence is clear that I am right. In my opinion if it's both true and impersonal, then it's not condescending. And I'm being as impersonal and nonjudgemental as I can here. But if "condescending" is your only objection then good enough I made my point. > It is when you already clarified it twice and it wasn't pertinent to the main point I was making, repeated above in this very comment. When you ignore the clarification, I worry you didn't see/understand/internalize it. The levels of proof are very different, so that makes me say it again to make sure we're on the same page.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > 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 wanting to use their phone at a restaurant are suffering from addition. That's the claim you need to support. > so that makes me say it again to make sure we're on the same page. Yes, I'm sure that was the reason.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > 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.