• krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist. You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

    • freagle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is what your commitment to your narrative has done to you. It has made you believe that there is a category of people who don’t vote because that is what they prefer, and you’re so committed that you are willing to make nonsense arguments that posit the existence of people who eat food but specifically will not and never will eat food if it’s in a restaurant.

      Nothing about your narrative is reasonable. Give people something they want and they will pursue it

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist.

      Legitimately don’t understand this word salad.

      You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

      Someone who doesn’t currently eat at restaurants might start eating at them if the restaurants find a way to appeal to them. That’s not a complicated concept.

      If I’m vegan, and no restaurants in my area offer vegan options, then I am someone who doesn’t eat at restaurants at all. If a restaurant opens up that does offer vegan options, or if an existing restaurant adds a vegan option, then I might start eating at restaurants. Do you not understand this concept?

      Likewise, someone who doesn’t vote might start voting if they’re appealed to. This is equally uncomplicated.