[bigfishrunning]

This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses. They're marketed at people who already have screens and better cameras in their pockets and on their wrists. "Clandestine" use cases are the only application here.

[Brendinooo]

Ugh, trying not to get baited into stuff like this but -

There are absolutely non-pervy reasons why your hands might be occupied but you want to record a video.

[bigfishrunning]

This is why gopros exist.

[Brendinooo]

I mean, this is logically no different than saying that we shouldn't use smartphone cameras because DSLRs exist.

[bigfishrunning]

It is, because when you're using a smartphone camera you're not trying to hide the fact that you're filming, or at least it's harder to do so. There are already ways to film without having to hold a camera, and those ways produce a better product. The advantage of the glasses is you can be a creep but be less obvious about it.

[Brendinooo]

- glasses are only for "clandestine" use

- any use case I could suggest will be dismissed because other tools exist

- those tools are "better" partly because they're not covert

- which re-asserts that covertness is the glasses' only distinguishing feature

- therefore the only use is being a creep

Am I reading this right? If so, it's circular, and I don't think I can do much more than just point that out.

[BeetleB]

> This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses.

Have you even bothered researching it?

Can you please go and respond to the comments in this submission and let them know you are denying their reality?

[bigfishrunning]

Use a GoPro or something. You'll get better quality video and you won't look like you're trying to hide the fact that you're filming.

[BeetleB]

So it's clear you're not going to bother researching into why people use it.

[bigfishrunning]

No, I don't need to research it. I have all the evidence I need.