Exactly. So arguing that “you shouldn’t technologically regress” is meaningless.
Fighting against it is like fighting the laws of the universe
Not only is this not applicable to the argument at hand, given there’s no law of nature that makes a CD player implode just because Spotify exists, but this statement is so bizarrely wrong it’s almost hard to take the rest of the discussion seriously.
Exactly. So arguing that “you shouldn’t technologically regress” is meaningless.
Did you lose track of your own argument?
You assumed that I meant technological progress is inherently good. I said technological progress isn’t good or bad, just inevitable. That does not mean that technological regression isn’t inherently bad.
And yes, the CD player did implode, figuratively, because Spotify exists. :)
Exactly. So arguing that “you shouldn’t technologically regress” is meaningless.
Not only is this not applicable to the argument at hand, given there’s no law of nature that makes a CD player implode just because Spotify exists, but this statement is so bizarrely wrong it’s almost hard to take the rest of the discussion seriously.
Did you lose track of your own argument?
You assumed that I meant technological progress is inherently good. I said technological progress isn’t good or bad, just inevitable. That does not mean that technological regression isn’t inherently bad.
And yes, the CD player did implode, figuratively, because Spotify exists. :)