It does not even loosely resemble the broad, non-legal definition of coercion in any way. There are zero similarities. Let alone the statutory definition, which is not near as broad.
It also is not and does not resemble FOMO, which is also not illegal anywhere and is practiced by every business on the planet.
No, fomo isn’t illegal. Coercion is. And although the legal definition of coercion doesnt include the mental distress one feels when feeling like they might miss out it doesnt mean that it cant be argued from a philosophical angle that fomo is a form of coercion.
Your view that it bares zero resemblance is very static.
No valid definition of coercion has any resemblance in any context to what is happening here.
Some things are absolute, and the fact that you don’t even sort of have any idea what you’re talking about is one of them. You’re not making a “philosophical argument”. You’re spouting completely incoherent gibberish.
I did not intend to state that fomo was a crime. I didn’t actually say that at any point.
I did say, and mean, that coercion is a crime. That is true from a legal standpoint.
I then gave my opinion, or my philosophical argument, that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion.
It’s not complete gibberish, and i wasn’t lying. You just misinterpreted what i meant.
I coild have been more clear in my argument, but it’s disingenuous and kinda shitty of you to call it complete gibberish when you clearly understood what i was saying.
Stop trying to aggressively argue with me when we could just discuss this like normal people.
I then gave my opinion, or my philosophical argument, rhat i believe that fomo is a form or coercion.
This is not an opinion. It is not a “philosophical argument”. It’s a lie.
And it’s absolutely incoherent gibberish. None of the words you are using mean anything close to what you’re claiming they do. You make posts, using your arbitrary, completely incorrect definition of words no one but you knows, then need many, many posts of consistently changing your wrong definitions for anyone to even be able to follow. There’s no path to a “discussion” when nothing you’re posting tracks in any way.
It does not even loosely resemble the broad, non-legal definition of coercion in any way. There are zero similarities. Let alone the statutory definition, which is not near as broad.
It also is not and does not resemble FOMO, which is also not illegal anywhere and is practiced by every business on the planet.
No, fomo isn’t illegal. Coercion is. And although the legal definition of coercion doesnt include the mental distress one feels when feeling like they might miss out it doesnt mean that it cant be argued from a philosophical angle that fomo is a form of coercion.
Your view that it bares zero resemblance is very static.
Only a sith deals in absolutes 😜
No valid definition of coercion has any resemblance in any context to what is happening here.
Some things are absolute, and the fact that you don’t even sort of have any idea what you’re talking about is one of them. You’re not making a “philosophical argument”. You’re spouting completely incoherent gibberish.
I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If i only you allowed me to be entitled to mine without trying to insult me.
It’s not an opinion. You are objectively wrong, completely redefining words to mean things that are entirely different.
You are not entitled to lie with words without being called out for it.
I will say what i have said to another user here.
I did not intend to state that fomo was a crime. I didn’t actually say that at any point.
I did say, and mean, that coercion is a crime. That is true from a legal standpoint.
I then gave my opinion, or my philosophical argument, that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion.
It’s not complete gibberish, and i wasn’t lying. You just misinterpreted what i meant.
I coild have been more clear in my argument, but it’s disingenuous and kinda shitty of you to call it complete gibberish when you clearly understood what i was saying.
Stop trying to aggressively argue with me when we could just discuss this like normal people.
This is not an opinion. It is not a “philosophical argument”. It’s a lie.
And it’s absolutely incoherent gibberish. None of the words you are using mean anything close to what you’re claiming they do. You make posts, using your arbitrary, completely incorrect definition of words no one but you knows, then need many, many posts of consistently changing your wrong definitions for anyone to even be able to follow. There’s no path to a “discussion” when nothing you’re posting tracks in any way.
Yes, it is. You are wrong. If you can’t follow it, that’s your problem. Not mine.