The problem is your argument doesn't make sense. The idea that watching simulated motion is any more natural than simulated 3D is silly, false and entirely without proof. The fact is many people have problems watching simulated motion too, will that never work?

That you tied your earlier argument to this post, which is entirely incorrect, provides more reason to believe you'll just go along with anything anti-3D whether or not it's true.

If you want to approach this logically, please do, i'm still waiting.

Oh yeah, and this:

"there is also some concern that very young eyes, that are still developing, can actually be permanently harmed by 3D"

also not true. Doctors actually believe watching 3D video can help diagnose vision problem in children while they're young and can still be fixed. The reasoning against having kids watch 3D content is because their eyes aren't far enough apart yet.

Well, obviously it's true because you said it, since there's no other evidence to support that claim.

Also, you didn't answer my question. At any point before motion pictures did anyone's eyes have to watch still images and pretend they were moving?

Unnatural things only seem to bother you (and Ebert following syncophants) when they have to do with 3D.

The only thing that makes less sense than thinking these two stories are relevant, is believing in the one you posted above.

Explain how millions of years of evolution prepared our eyes to watch still images flashed rapidly in succession to create the illusion of moving pictures.

I'll wait.

Who's going to read the entire study to actually find that out? They just read the abstract and press the "hate 3D" button.

TechCrunch (Along with Ars Techinca and others) got it completely wrong.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/22/samsung-studies-3d-viewing-discomfort-finds-out-bloggers-dont/

If you read the study, and not the abstract, you'd know they didn't actually watch any 3D. They tested different situations of focusing on various objects to find out WHY some 3D hurts peoples eyes. They did not "find that 3D hurts your eyes" becuase that's not what they were looknig for.

In fact, they discovered the comfortable range for 3D viewing is wider than previously thought.

But you have to actually read the study to know that. - link to the study: http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.full

If you hate 3D, hate 3D, but actually read the article before throwing your two cents in.

--Richard Lawler, Engadget