We’re not talking about my expectation, we’re talking about the hypothetical expectation of the boycotting gamers that you yourself brought up a couple of posts ago, and why you would consider them not buying video games a tragedy, while it is not a tragedy if you do not buy a video game.
Why is it not coercion when you disengage with a work? Obviously you disengage for a particular reason, and if that reason no longer applicable, you would no longer disengage right? Or do you just randomly disengage with works that you are completely satisfied with?
you can talk to that strawman all on your own…
In your own words, could you explain what you believe the strawman is, and why it does not apply in your case?
Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no? And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?
In both cases, if the person needs what the other person is witholding, he is compelled to meet their demands, no?
Ask direct complete questions
“Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no?” and “And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?” are complete questions, in fact, they are straight up yes or no questions, the simplest of them all.
We’re not talking about my expectation, we’re talking about the hypothetical expectation of the boycotting gamers that you yourself brought up a couple of posts ago, and why you would consider them not buying video games a tragedy, while it is not a tragedy if you do not buy a video game.
I would consider it a moral failure if they boycotted and attempted to punitively coerce game developers and publishers.
If you want to have some different “gotcha” conversation, you don’t need my participation, you can talk to that strawman all on your own…
Why is it not coercion when you disengage with a work? Obviously you disengage for a particular reason, and if that reason no longer applicable, you would no longer disengage right? Or do you just randomly disengage with works that you are completely satisfied with?
In your own words, could you explain what you believe the strawman is, and why it does not apply in your case?
Why is it not coercion if your boss simply ignores you instead of propositioning you?
Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no? And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?
Go spend some time with a dictionary then come back and we’ll talk…
Which word in the above post are you having trouble with?
You seem to be having trouble with the definition coercion… I’m not going to explain anything else to you or respond to any more bad faith questions.
Ask direct complete questions, provide a declarative statement of your own thesis, or kick rocks.
In both cases, if the person needs what the other person is witholding, he is compelled to meet their demands, no?
“Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no?” and “And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?” are complete questions, in fact, they are straight up yes or no questions, the simplest of them all.