I seen too many internet forums saying that if you don’t boycott X, Y, and Z, then you’re a “terrible person”. What do you think about that?
I seen too many internet forums saying that if you don’t boycott X, Y, and Z, then you’re a “terrible person”. What do you think about that?
Would you not judge people for putting a gun to the head of a child and pulling the trigger?
Because buying from some companies is paying the salary and the bullets of the people who do exactly that.
When people are designated as “terrorists” you can even be held criminally liable under the current system, if you keep doing business with them. Shouldnt the same standard apply for people doing business with genocide?
Those are completely separate examples and you know it.
If you think that giving a murderer money so he can buy a gun to murder people with is not related to the act of murdering people, i would love to hear the explanation.
First of all, you’re demanding me answer something that is completely separate from the original argument. OP asked about judging other people for their purchases. You are asking about an action that presents direct violent harm, something completely different. Purchasing something from a company may support violence in some way, but purchasing an item may support the company’s practices, but it does not necessarily mean that every purchase directly funds those harmful actions. Your comparison is quite literally the “Appeal to Emotion” fallacy, it is not a good-faith argument, you are trying to present an emotional picture that isn’t relevant, and I won’t buy into it.
All the time on the internet this happens. Someone here put it very well. Someone can ask “What is 2+2” and a commenter will reply “4”. Someone else then will inevitably reply “Well what about 2+3?! You didn’t even consider it!”
The question was asked and answered, you’re asking something completely separate.