> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:51:07 -0400, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: > > When people boycott a product, it isn't because not having the product > > is better than having the product. That's clearly untrue: despite the > > reasons for the boycott, the product has some value. They boycott it > > because by doing so, they can get something better than <product with > > badness> or <nothing> -- they can get <product without badness>. (At > > least, in theory :) >
On Jul 24, 10:34 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > I don't think that's why people boycott products. I think that boycotts > are a clear example of people making a moral decision to punish somebody > for doing wrong, even at the cost to themselves. Sometimes significant > costs, as in missing out altogether. > I dont see so much difference -- maybe you missed the 'badness' in Devin's quote? People who lose family, get jailed, blown-up etc for causes they believe in, have the equation (at least in their value-system) that the 'badness' is enough that these eventualities are acceptable. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
