you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 months ago* (8 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So in your mind, they are charging money for these things, but they do not intend to make money from these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments