Utah has become the latest state to sue TikTok, alleging the social media company is “baiting” children into addictive and unhealthy habits.

Utah sues TikTok, alleging it lures children into addictive and destructive social media habits::Utah has become the latest state to sue TikTok, alleging the social media company is “baiting” children into addictive and unhealthy habits.

  • paintbucketholder@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    9 months ago

    I’m merely reiterating the position of the poster you replied to.

    You can disagree with that position, but you seemed to be replying to a position that nobody was even taking.

      • paintbucketholder@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        You were clearly arguing against a position that nobody here took.

        That means you either lack the reading comprehension to understand what was stated, or you’re purposefully creating a strawman to argue against.

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          I’ve explained in detail, you’ve not understood the explanation and taken an illogical stance.

          I can’t help you out of a hole you’ve put yourself in. It’s okay to disagree though, you don’t have to lower yourself to ad hominems.

          • paintbucketholder@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            Why complain about ad hominems after attacking me? You’re the one who lowered the level of the discourse - why are you complaining now?

              • paintbucketholder@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago

                Of course, I’d be happy to!

                It was when you questioned my comprehension of the argument that was being made instead of the argument itself by saying “you just haven’t understood the position.”

                That’s literally an ad hominem.

                • killeronthecorner@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  No that was an observation. I’m not judging you for it, I don’t think you’re of poor character due to it.

                  You however did attack my character. Ironically because once again you’ve misunderstood the situation.

                  • paintbucketholder@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    9 months ago

                    No that was an observation.

                    An observation about the argument is part of a debate, an observation about the person that is making the argument is an ad hominem.

                    It’s literally the definition of “ad hominem.”

                    In that regard, your defense that you were merely making an observation is irrelevant. It’s relevant what you were making an observation about.

                    I’m not judging you for it, I don’t think you’re of poor character due to it.

                    Again irrelevant, and I don’t particularly care either way what you may or may not think about me.

                    The relevant point is that instead of tackling the argument that was being made, you decided to instead attack my comprehension.

                    That’s an ad hominem, an attack on the person you’re having a conversation with.

                    I’m not complaining about that, by the way, I’m merely providing you with an explanation since you’re apparently ignorant - i.e. lacking the knowledge - of what does and what doesn’t constitute an ad hominem.

                    You, on the other hand, are the one complaining about being attacked after bringing the conversation down to a level of ad hominem attacks, and you seem to be interested in maintaining that low level of discourse by throwing in another ad hominem here.

                    So my suggestion to you would be: either refrain from attacking other posters and focus on the arguments they’re making, or try not acting insulted when you’re being treated the same way that you’re treating others.