2 ms·
This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like. Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d p
by zepto 6y ago
This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like.
Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want.
It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want.
Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wanted a candidate who would reduce taxes.”, “Jack wants his father to beat up the bullies at school”.
- fsflover 6y agohttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want What you mean here is "have to", not "want".
- zepto 6y agoNothing in that definition contradicts my usage. If you can see a semantic difference between their examples and mine, please explain it. And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you. That isn’t a given. It is a conclusion you want us to agree with. This is an attempt at ‘affirming the consequent’, I.e. your argument assumes your conclusion to be true, which is a fallacy. I have to assume you know this.
- fsflover 6y ago> Nothing in that definition contradicts my usage. At the same time, nothing in that definition contradicts my usage, too. > And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you. That isn’t a given. This is a given. When you only have just two options, and one of them is openly anti-privacy, anti-consumer, it's clear that the other option is a forced choice. I am far from the first person to say that about Apple.