4 ms·

If the Christians are bullying the athiests, and the agnostic does nothing, then yes, they are implicitly supporting the actions taking place in their vicinity.

If the Christians are bullying the athiests, and the agnostic does nothing, then yes, they are implicitly supporting the actions taking place in their vicinity. If they're just all sitting around doing nothing, the implicit support is of them sitting around doing nothing.

whatshisface 7y ago
Every moment you're not actively working for the FBI homicide department, you're commiting implicit murders.
- philipov 7y ago
  Yes, people are fine with all sorts of murders and other atrocities taking place, as long as its not happening to them. As long as the right kind of people suffer. Your phrasing is wrong, of course, because you're conflating support for something with committing the act yourself, but you're not too far off the mark.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  If you are present for a murder and you do nothing to either prevent it or report it, then yes, you are complicit in the murder.
eitland 7y ago
This is an extremely bad example for two reasons: - one: you are bringing religion into a discussion where it isn't necessary - two: it hangs in a frame where a causual passer-by might think this is usual. I mean: if I write "if the rabbits chases the cats and the dogs do nothing" an hypothetical reader who knows nothing about cats and rabbits might easily get the idea that this is a common occurrence, while in fact it is fact a very unusual one.
- philipov 7y ago
  - one: not my example; it was introduced by someone as a rhetorical jab by trying to introduce an emotionally-charged subject. The point doesn't depend on religion in any particular way, and I'm happy to rephrase it. - two: I think this is fine. In an example where a bunch of people are sitting in a bar and a big group starts bullying a smaller group, someone who does nothing is allowing this to happen, and we can attribute moral responsibility for them allowing this to happen. Just because everyone knows that it's normal for someone to always get bullied by the larger group doesn't make it okay. If someone doesn't know or understand that bullying is wrong, assigning moral responsibility is more complicated, but neither of those things depend on their knowledge of the frequency of bullying. There is a way in which available information is important, but not this one.
  - eitland 7y ago
    > Just because everyone knows that it's normal for someone to always get bullied by the larger group doesn't make it okay. Hmmmm. I think you managed to sneak in another subtle error: If that was your idea then, at least in an Internet context, you should probably write about how Atheists are bullying Christians. I'd avoid this example at all. It feels contrived and either you intended it or not it smears a good number of innocent people. Use something neutral instead: Group a and group b or something.
    - philipov 7y ago
      > Group a and group b or something. I referred to the groups as "The Larger Group" and "The Smaller Group." I'm not sure what you're getting at.
      - skinkestek 7y ago
        Ok, let me spell it out then: Writing - especially in an Internet forum context - about Christians bullying Atheists is about as fitting as - in a historic context - writing an example about Jews killing Nazis. Yes, it has happened, more than once. And no, for some reason that doesn't make it a good example except when we are discussing that particular topic. Besides, as was mentioned above you are both pulling an unrelated group of people into this and you are pulling religion into an argument about something else. Snide remarks like that is equally annoying regardless of if they come from you or from the old relative who always wants to frame everything good that happens as a miracle from $DEITY Both you and the old relative might mean it well and get som points from people who agree with you but on the larger scale it only increases tension.
        philipov 7y ago
        I rephrased in terms of unnamed groups, what are you still going on about? You should direct these comments at the person who chose to make it about religion.
        7y ago
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Religion is absolutely part of the negotiation of power (politics). It is, after all, still 2019, but I think this will be so even in Dune.

whatshisface 7y ago

Every moment you're not actively working for the FBI homicide department, you're commiting implicit murders.

philipov 7y ago
Yes, people are fine with all sorts of murders and other atrocities taking place, as long as its not happening to them. As long as the right kind of people suffer. Your phrasing is wrong, of course, because you're conflating support for something with committing the act yourself, but you're not too far off the mark.
shkkmo 7y ago
If you are present for a murder and you do nothing to either prevent it or report it, then yes, you are complicit in the murder.

eitland 7y ago

This is an extremely bad example for two reasons: - one: you are bringing religion into a discussion where it isn't necessary - two: it hangs in a frame where a causual passer-by might think this is usual. I mean: if I write "if the rabbits chases the cats and the dogs do nothing" an hypothetical reader who knows nothing about cats and rabbits might easily get the idea that this is a common occurrence, while in fact it is fact a very unusual one.

philipov 7y ago
- one: not my example; it was introduced by someone as a rhetorical jab by trying to introduce an emotionally-charged subject. The point doesn't depend on religion in any particular way, and I'm happy to rephrase it. - two: I think this is fine. In an example where a bunch of people are sitting in a bar and a big group starts bullying a smaller group, someone who does nothing is allowing this to happen, and we can attribute moral responsibility for them allowing this to happen. Just because everyone knows that it's normal for someone to always get bullied by the larger group doesn't make it okay. If someone doesn't know or understand that bullying is wrong, assigning moral responsibility is more complicated, but neither of those things depend on their knowledge of the frequency of bullying. There is a way in which available information is important, but not this one.
- eitland 7y ago
  > Just because everyone knows that it's normal for someone to always get bullied by the larger group doesn't make it okay. Hmmmm. I think you managed to sneak in another subtle error: If that was your idea then, at least in an Internet context, you should probably write about how Atheists are bullying Christians. I'd avoid this example at all. It feels contrived and either you intended it or not it smears a good number of innocent people. Use something neutral instead: Group a and group b or something.
  - philipov 7y ago
    > Group a and group b or something. I referred to the groups as "The Larger Group" and "The Smaller Group." I'm not sure what you're getting at.
    - skinkestek 7y ago
      Ok, let me spell it out then: Writing - especially in an Internet forum context - about Christians bullying Atheists is about as fitting as - in a historic context - writing an example about Jews killing Nazis. Yes, it has happened, more than once. And no, for some reason that doesn't make it a good example except when we are discussing that particular topic. Besides, as was mentioned above you are both pulling an unrelated group of people into this and you are pulling religion into an argument about something else. Snide remarks like that is equally annoying regardless of if they come from you or from the old relative who always wants to frame everything good that happens as a miracle from $DEITY Both you and the old relative might mean it well and get som points from people who agree with you but on the larger scale it only increases tension.
      - philipov 7y ago
        I rephrased in terms of unnamed groups, what are you still going on about? You should direct these comments at the person who chose to make it about religion.
        7y ago
threatofrain 7y ago
Religion is absolutely part of the negotiation of power (politics). It is, after all, still 2019, but I think this will be so even in Dune.