> You're going to have to do more work to justify dismissing an argument
I did. You have ignored half of my comments both times you replied.
> You've personally interviewed every gig worker?
There is a process to become a driver that people must choose to do. They also stop driving the second they don't do it purposefully. How do you think they're NOT choosing to do it?
> no coercive forces at play
I have no idea what you're driving at. No one chooses to be born, no one chooses the cell structure that requires consumption. There are thousands of choices we don't make to live in society.
> I have no idea what you're driving at. No one chooses to be born, no one chooses the cell structure that requires consumption. There are thousands of choices we don't make to live in society.
"Your argument is that someone unemployed and starving found a job where they could feed themselves - but its not a good enough job?" is not an explanation for why the argument is emotional.
> How do you think they're NOT choosing to do it?
Because I don't have a idealistic view of free will that assumes all choices are ultimately unconstrained? I view the distinction between an armed robbery and being forced into a job to prevent starvation only a matter of abstraction not kind.
I did. You have ignored half of my comments both times you replied.
> You've personally interviewed every gig worker?
There is a process to become a driver that people must choose to do. They also stop driving the second they don't do it purposefully. How do you think they're NOT choosing to do it?
> no coercive forces at play
I have no idea what you're driving at. No one chooses to be born, no one chooses the cell structure that requires consumption. There are thousands of choices we don't make to live in society.