Technology

59569 readers

3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

979

US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones (www.theverge.com)

submitted 8 months ago by sverit@feddit.de to c/technology@lemmy.world

258 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] gregorum@lemm.ee -14 points 8 months ago (26 children)

This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (25 children)

I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

[+] gregorum@lemm.ee -11 points 8 months ago (24 children)

Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

Source

[+] 0xD@infosec.pub -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.

It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.

load more comments (22 replies)