They very obviously weren't claiming that, they were responding to a specific comment about there being nothing interesting on smartphones. Try to interpret what people say with good faith.

the subtext of their comment, the unspoken implication, the between the lines meaning was that it's fine people are on their phone all the time, because some of them are reading books

I didn't read it like that at all.

obviously I did

what do we do now, ask other users for their input? make a poll?

i don't know why HN has this habit of using anecdotes as absolute counter-arguments, makes for uninteresting discussion in my opinion

and the subtext is always the same "A did/didn't happen to me, so then it follows A does/doesn't happen to anyone"

Actually, you phrased your previous post as though it were a fact, not an opinion, so it's more like "A didn't happen for me, so A does not happen for everyone."

I was challenging your assertion, not making a counter-assertion.

I think the implication was that it didn't have to be on tiktok. it's a choice that people make. the phone doesn't force them. rejecting the phone entirely isn't some form of virtue or moral purity.

Tending to one's mental health and advancement is a virtue, falling into abject hedonism is a moral failing

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with hedonistic activities, so long as they don't harm other people and so long as you avoid things like addiction. Even something like using heroin isn't immoral in and of itself (except according to some religions), it's just that it's so unlikely you'll be able to use it once without going down the path of addiction that most of us sensibly treat it as something to never do.

Social media can cause mental health issues, qnd can lead to addiction to it, but that doesn't mean that using it is a moral failing. And frankly, neither is becoming addicted to heroin a moral failing (though most people would consider it a personal failing since we would dislike being addicted to it), it's a healthcare issue not a morality issue. The only moral failing would be committing offences against other people because of the addiction, eg stealing from somebody to pay for the drugs.

true, addiction is not a moral failing

that doesn't negate what I said at all, not striving to keep a healthy body and healthy mind, not working on developing yourself, on elevating yourself, not wanting to become better, IS a moral failing

and certain hedonistic activities, like the social media dopamine dispensers, although they do not hurt other people, do hurt the moral imperative of growing yourself as a person

>>not striving to keep a healthy body and healthy mind, not working on developing yourself, on elevating yourself, not wanting to become better, IS a moral failing

Whoa. How is it any of your business how I live my life so long as I am not impacting you or society in any way? I'm 72 years old and I spend my time the way I want to spend my time. I don't exercise any longer. And that will almost certainly shorten how much longer I live. How is that any of your business?

Just because your choices might not affect me, and they don't, at all, doesn't mean they're moral, doesn't mean they're good.

I would rank self-actualization, personal growth, as the second rule behind the golden rule, and there are many schools of philosophy where that's the case: aristotelian ethics, kantian ethics, existentialism, etc.

>>I would rank self-actualization

Why should I (or anyone) care where you (or anyone) rank anything?

I'm pretty comfortable with my ranking of things. What someone else thinks about how I decide to live my life is pretty much at the bottom of my ranking board.

> Whoa. How is it any of your business how I live my life so long as I am not impacting you or society in any way? I'm 72 years old and I spend my time the way I want to spend my time. I don't exercise any longer. And that will almost certainly shorten how much longer I live. How is that any of your business?

Because your actions will impact society. You might get healthcare, paid for by the rest of society, which may or may not be caused by you not exercising. Or it might be caused by you exercising.

The way people raise their kids affects society, or even simply their decision to have or not have a certain number of kids impacts society. Some personal actions can collectively impact society.

Maybe you talking shit causes some of us to experience stress which results in medical issues that impacts society.

We could go on that merry-go-round forever. Just ridiculous.

Said on a social media platform?

reading a book isn't neither abject hedonism nor a moral failing.

true

spending 2.5 months doomscrolling or browsing tiktok, on the other hand....

I'll refer you back to my original comment:

> I think the implication was that it didn't have to be on tiktok. it's a choice that people make. the phone doesn't force them. rejecting the phone entirely isn't some form of virtue or moral purity.

arguing semantics

in this particular context "rejecting the phone" means "rejecting tiktok"

no one was concerned about the phone if the vast majority of users were reading books on it

I get the impression you just didn't read it properly and are now digging in your heels.

If "the vast majority of users" could "reject the phone", then they could also "reject tiktok".