> Equating smartphones with consoles diminishes their significance for the purpose of framing an argument in a certain way. It's just not helpful.
And I just made the case for why it's acceptable to equate the two despite the significance for smart phones.
> Whoa. You're arguing like 5 or 6 different point I never tried to make. It's like you saw the word "iPhone" and immediately went into super defensive mode. That's... uh.. shall we say, concerning.
I'm arguing 5 or 6 different points that explain why I think that the (very real) significance of smartphones isn't necessarily consequential to whether we ought to treat them like we treat game consoles.
> It's actually funny because despite what you've assumed, I'm actually an Apple user and developer. I've exclusively used their phones and computers for over a decade. I love them. In my living room (where I'm sitting right now), there are over $10k worth of Apple products. Yet somehow you keep assuming that I'm anti-Apple. And you're relentlessly countering arguments I never made. Stop it.
I don't think I ever made that assumption, and if I did, I apologize.
> So, what are you arguing? When you reply, try not to use the phrase "(universal) first principle". Your use of that phrase to describe an opinion comes across as condescending and arrogant.
I never used the phrase "first principle", so I'm not sure what you're on about. What I'm arguing is that we ought to pick a principle that can be consistently applied analogously. If you find an analog that you think is inappropriate (mobile vs console), try and identify why it's inappropriate. You did that by arguing that mobile phones are socially far more significant than consoles.
In my argument, I made the case that the analogy is in fact totally appropriate despite the fact that mobile phones are (in this moment) more significant, because the circumstances that make the two markets different are actually ephemeral.
Anyway, you've been fairly hostile in this entire conversation (more so than anyone else in the thread), so it's probably not worth my time to engage any further.
>you've been fairly hostile in this entire conversation
Fair. But I take offence at being told my ideas/thoughts are violating "consistently applied" (universal or wholly agreed upon) principles[0]. It's condescending and smug.
It's especially annoying when you can't seem to clearly articulate what that principle is, or why it trumps the principle that "we should do what is best for society and the economy" that I am putting forth.
[0] Technically, you're right. You didn't say "first principle" so I apologize for that. However, you did say "consistently applied principles" and the gist is pretty much the same (as in "it's a universally agreed upon truth").
And I just made the case for why it's acceptable to equate the two despite the significance for smart phones.
> Whoa. You're arguing like 5 or 6 different point I never tried to make. It's like you saw the word "iPhone" and immediately went into super defensive mode. That's... uh.. shall we say, concerning.
I'm arguing 5 or 6 different points that explain why I think that the (very real) significance of smartphones isn't necessarily consequential to whether we ought to treat them like we treat game consoles.
> It's actually funny because despite what you've assumed, I'm actually an Apple user and developer. I've exclusively used their phones and computers for over a decade. I love them. In my living room (where I'm sitting right now), there are over $10k worth of Apple products. Yet somehow you keep assuming that I'm anti-Apple. And you're relentlessly countering arguments I never made. Stop it.
I don't think I ever made that assumption, and if I did, I apologize.
> So, what are you arguing? When you reply, try not to use the phrase "(universal) first principle". Your use of that phrase to describe an opinion comes across as condescending and arrogant.
I never used the phrase "first principle", so I'm not sure what you're on about. What I'm arguing is that we ought to pick a principle that can be consistently applied analogously. If you find an analog that you think is inappropriate (mobile vs console), try and identify why it's inappropriate. You did that by arguing that mobile phones are socially far more significant than consoles.
In my argument, I made the case that the analogy is in fact totally appropriate despite the fact that mobile phones are (in this moment) more significant, because the circumstances that make the two markets different are actually ephemeral.
Anyway, you've been fairly hostile in this entire conversation (more so than anyone else in the thread), so it's probably not worth my time to engage any further.