> Which sounds a hell of a lot like denial through minimizing.
At that point I was just calling out an exaggeration, which is not the same thing as denial. It might be possible in a very niche case, but "if you ever" portrays it as a typical result.
> So I post saying: "even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
You interpreted "about zero" in a different way than I meant it. You seemed to take it as a small amount in every case, when I meant that it could often actually be zero.
The difference is important, because you can make an argument that a small delay harms someone, but you can't make an argument that zero delay harms anyone.
> It seems like a statement you seem to agree to but haven't stated as much.
I agree that small delays can be harmful, but there's a threshold before I think we can assign blame.
> Instead, you edited my words to try and prove the point that I have 'unrealistic expectations'.
I'm sorry I omitted words. The omitted words don't change my argument. If you think they do, I think you're misunderstanding the argument.
"You do realize even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
Every time someone drives they waste some amount of others' time needlessly. Everyone, always.
When you said "any", were you using it in a non-literal sense? Or do you think other wastes of time are not "needless"?
If you answer "no" to both of those, then I think your standard is impossible, and you're holding phone-users to a higher standard than everyone else.
I'm really not trying to distort your view. If I'm still not understanding something, it's not on purpose, and I really welcome correction.
Please believe me. I did not have any intent to distort your statement when I removed those words. I did it to make it clearer what words I was focusing on. To me, "waste" implies "needlessly" in this context.
-
And then entirely separate from that, I assert that it's possible to use a phone while stopped without causing any delay, if done right.
Needlessly, definition: in a way that is unnecessary because it is avoidable.
Therefore this statement:
> every time someone drives they waste some amount of others' time needlessly
Is absolutely incorrect. Following good driving techniques means no needless wasted time happens when driving. By the very definition of the word needless. Anything that is within good driving techniques is needed. By the very definition of good driving techniques.
Since cell phone use to check messages (the point which you are answering to) is not needed to operate a motor vehicle, IF time is wasted on this (again, the point you are literally hitting reply to), any amount, it is a needless imposition on other people. As someone who can communicate effectively pointed out, this has a knock on effect. (again, the point you are replying to)
Using words by their actual meaning helps communication. Playing games and saying 'driving is not needed' is a silly ego defense that doesn't further the understanding of reality and the finding of truth. Especially because there are people who clearly need to drive. And the who point that was being made was 'when driving', not if driving is needed.
This is all very basic.
BTW, in the middle of the hair splitting defensive posting, you forgot to clarify what the point you were making when replying to rconti - because that is the topic we are supposed to be on.
I am not getting any deeper into a semantics argument.
> you forgot to clarify what the point you were making when replying to rconti - because that is the topic we are supposed to be on
"At that point I was just calling out an exaggeration, which is not the same thing as denial. It might be possible in a very niche case, but "if you ever" portrays it as a typical result."
I think that's about all I have to say so uh good luck in life!
At that point I was just calling out an exaggeration, which is not the same thing as denial. It might be possible in a very niche case, but "if you ever" portrays it as a typical result.
> So I post saying: "even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
You interpreted "about zero" in a different way than I meant it. You seemed to take it as a small amount in every case, when I meant that it could often actually be zero.
The difference is important, because you can make an argument that a small delay harms someone, but you can't make an argument that zero delay harms anyone.
> It seems like a statement you seem to agree to but haven't stated as much.
I agree that small delays can be harmful, but there's a threshold before I think we can assign blame.
> Instead, you edited my words to try and prove the point that I have 'unrealistic expectations'.
I'm sorry I omitted words. The omitted words don't change my argument. If you think they do, I think you're misunderstanding the argument.
"You do realize even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
Every time someone drives they waste some amount of others' time needlessly. Everyone, always.
When you said "any", were you using it in a non-literal sense? Or do you think other wastes of time are not "needless"?
If you answer "no" to both of those, then I think your standard is impossible, and you're holding phone-users to a higher standard than everyone else.
I'm really not trying to distort your view. If I'm still not understanding something, it's not on purpose, and I really welcome correction.
Please believe me. I did not have any intent to distort your statement when I removed those words. I did it to make it clearer what words I was focusing on. To me, "waste" implies "needlessly" in this context.
-
And then entirely separate from that, I assert that it's possible to use a phone while stopped without causing any delay, if done right.