3 ms·
> There is nothing personal in boycotting products from a specific country. It doesn't matter whether the company you're boycotting is an active supporter of th
by vidoc 10y ago
> There is nothing personal in boycotting products from a specific country. It doesn't matter whether the company you're boycotting is an active supporter of the policies you disagree with or not, as you don't mean to punish that company, but to both show that you consider some behaviours unacceptable and to create a political pressure for change.
Hehe, thanks for having taken the time to provide your definition of boycotting, now in all fairness, at this point I was hoping you had realized we basically agreed on what boycotting is but were arguing about its merits. So hey, your definition is spot on, and my personal opinion is that the very idea that punishing individuals or companies will create political pressure and generate change is not only unfair and stupid, but it's also a fallacy.
> I repeat my question, would you have happily bought products from apartheid South Africa?
I thought my answer was clear since I made sure to add some examples but apparently not, so let me try again: I would try to use common sense, if the product comes from a company that supports or encourages the apartheid I probably would pass, in case I didn't have such evidence, or evidence that the company encouraged the end of the apartheid, it would be different.
> As for your personal experience re. french fries and idiot waiters and restaurant owners in the US, that has very little to do with boycott and much with pure ignorance. But brought up in this context it's a pure straw man argument.
It actually does, so in case you honestly didn't get the commonality between this anecdote and boycotting, here we go. In both cases, an individual or a company gets penalized, irregardless of its own opinion, because it belongs to a particular group disagreed upon. But hey let me know if it's still unclear, I'll provide your some images. Now in case you are just interested in rhetoric here, I hate to say it but you need a few more miles to become a master of sophism.
- Udik 10y agoNo, if you take as an example of boycotting a waiter who refused to serve you at a restaurant, we don't agree on a definition of it. By the way, and just to show you how completely inconsistent your argument is, in 2003 you probably supported your government's stance, so according to your own reasoning (companies and individuals are the same, let's punish only those who support), the waiter was actually right in not wanting to serve you. As for your answer to my question, you said: "To answer your question, I don't know".