Utah sues TikTok, alleging it lures children into addictive and destructive social media 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.
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
It's possible for more than one thing to be bad, we don't have to pick just one of the two.
This is what they said; they implied the root comment was saying that two things couldn't be bad or only one could be solved. But it didn't. He said, paraphrasing, "there are two issues and I find this one to be far worse".
Ranking issues in terms of how bad they are seems a fairly normal thing to do. It also implies that there is more than one.
they implied the root comment was saying that two things couldn't be bad or only one could be solved.
I don't agree with that interpretation.
They simply stated that ranking things by "badness" also implies a ranking in terms of which one of those bad things is more urgent and should be addressed first - not that one thing was bad and that the other wasn't, or that only one thing could be addressed.
It's a bad interpretation but you are, or course, welcome to it
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.
I am not, you just haven't understood the position. But that's fine.
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.
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.
Why complain about ad hominems after attacking me? You're the one who lowered the level of the discourse - why are you complaining now?
Can you quote where I attacked you?
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.