[philipov]

- 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]

> 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]

> 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]

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]

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.

[blotter_paper]

(Hey philipov, I'm kinda using this comment to reply to both of you -- not everything here is directed at you.)

Guy Who Chose To Make It About Religion, over here! FWIW I was just looking for a concrete example that would illustrate the preposterous nature of the statement I was replying to, and when I searched my brain for people who don't have a position on something "agnostic" was the one that immediately came to mind. Having the hindsight of seeing this little back and forth between you two, maybe "undecided voter" would have been more apropos... but I feel like that could have potentially spiraled out, too. In any event, I wasn't trying to start a holy flame war and I didn't imagine that anybody would go on a tangent about the religious aspect of it.

That said, why not stoke these flames unnecessarily? As for whether athiests gang up on Christians more than the other way around, I don't think the "internet" context is relevant; the internet is the context we're discussing this in, but the hypothetical bar was IRL (or at least, that was the interpretation of the author and the author has never heard of a bar that isn't IRL). Where I live (Midwest US) Christians ganging up on athiests seems more common than the other way around IRL, so if we need to unpack the realism of philipov's modification to my example and willfully ignore the fact that their choice of which group would be cast as the aggressor was just based on which group was initially larger in my example (which was in turn based on which group is larger IRL, but I don't feel the example would be substantially different if labels were reversed) I'll vote for "marginally more realistic than the other way around and nowhere near the same ballpark as a roles-reversed holocaust."

Edit: s/the holocaust/a roles-reversed holocaust/

[philipov]

Good explanation. My original point was that the attempt to reduce to absurdity fails because it's not simply being something or holding some opinion that causes others to be in implicit support of it. Implicit support consists in being present when an immoral or unethical action takes place, and not stopping it when you have the opportunity to do so. Indeed, it doesn't even require one group to be in the majority, although fear of going against a larger group is often what causes people to stay silent.