Well, you never actually addressed the points. But if expecting that is “being a dick”, well, whatever…

Reply point by point:

Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.

Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?

Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.

Can you read? If yes, read my previous comment.

See my previous comment about strawmanning, mr. “I learned about logical fallacies 5 days ago”

EDIT: So mad you come and check the replies within 5 minutes just to downvote?

If it makes you happy you can think you won the argument

Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.

EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.

Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?

Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.

This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.

It’s really no different

Was the initial claim

By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.

It is quite different, phones are useful devices that people rely on, this is not. More akin to breaking some useless annoying gadget like a toy siren or something