What do you mean burden of proof? It’s the dictionary definition. That I put literally right on top. To be compelled to act. Are you saying that in one case, you are not compelled to act, despite needing the same thing from the same party?
To force (a person) to do something; drive or constrain
You are driven to meet the other party’s demand in both cases, please stay focused. We are talking about selling your work to consumers. The entire goal is to get the consumers’ money.
If you don’t need to get the consumer’s money, then why would a boycott be a moral failure? You don’t need them. Even in this case there is no practical difference between two cases of propositioning and ignoring.
You are objecting when you are disengaging from these works, are you not? Unless, going back to a previous question, you are the type to disengage with works you are completely satisfied with?
: to feel distaste for something
This is the definition for object I mean. If you wanted to pull out the dictionary thing again.
Again, if you don’t understand that the passive behavior of “not engaging” is different from active opposing, I don’t know what to do for you. Life must be very difficult if this is how you communicate.
Abstaining from debate on Israel vs Palestine is very different from demonstrating in support of Israel.
It’s different, but it doesn’t make one coercion and one not coercion, if, again, going back to the original point, the goal is to get the consumers’ money. Not my goal. The goal of the creator of these works. These works are intended for commercial sale. The base assumption is that the creator of these works intend, and are driven to, get the consumer’s money. Or is that the part you are having trouble understanding?
What do you mean burden of proof? It’s the dictionary definition. That I put literally right on top. To be compelled to act. Are you saying that in one case, you are not compelled to act, despite needing the same thing from the same party?
So now you don’t know what the word “compel” means?
You’re wasting my fucking time kiddo.
You are driven to meet the other party’s demand in both cases, please stay focused. We are talking about selling your work to consumers. The entire goal is to get the consumers’ money.
Then you don’t understand art, and your opinion of its value is moot.
If you don’t need to get the consumer’s money, then why would a boycott be a moral failure? You don’t need them. Even in this case there is no practical difference between two cases of propositioning and ignoring.
Because gatekeeping and objecting to artistic expression is inherently morally indefensible.
You are objecting when you are disengaging from these works, are you not? Unless, going back to a previous question, you are the type to disengage with works you are completely satisfied with?
This is the definition for object I mean. If you wanted to pull out the dictionary thing again.
Again, if you don’t understand that the passive behavior of “not engaging” is different from active opposing, I don’t know what to do for you. Life must be very difficult if this is how you communicate.
Abstaining from debate on Israel vs Palestine is very different from demonstrating in support of Israel.
It’s different, but it doesn’t make one coercion and one not coercion, if, again, going back to the original point, the goal is to get the consumers’ money. Not my goal. The goal of the creator of these works. These works are intended for commercial sale. The base assumption is that the creator of these works intend, and are driven to, get the consumer’s money. Or is that the part you are having trouble understanding?