[flamble]

> Is there a practical difference between someone choosing to join your cause and your coercing someone to join your cause?

Yes, in that one involves coercion, which in itself has a moral weight.

> Is there a practical difference between someone choosing to remain uninvolved and someone choosing to join the opponents of your cause?

Yes, in that those are different actions and as such will produce different outcomes.

I assume that those two hypotheticals were intended as counterexamples to the principle that being involved in activity that produces or contributes to harm is wrong even if you don't specifically intend the harm.

It's not as if e.g. buying a kidney on the black market is morally equivalent to kidnapping a person and surgically removing it from them (presuming that that is how the vendor acquired it). But it's more absurd to pretend that you can engage in that transaction, proclaim "I didn't intend and don't condone any harm ensuing from the acquisition of this organ" and thus absolve yourself of any guilt.

[useragent86]

Thanks, but those questions were meant as exercises for the poster I replied to. ;)

[adwn]

> * Thanks, but those questions were meant as exercises for the poster I replied to. ;)*

That's not how discussions work around here. And, frankly, you sound a bit condescending.

[useragent86]

> That's not how discussions work around here.

Yes, I know--offering obvious expository answers to obviously rhetorical questions is how discussions work around here. ;)

> I assume that those two hypotheticals were intended as counterexamples to the principle that being involved in activity that produces or contributes to harm is wrong even if you don't specifically intend the harm.

That's not the principle in question. The claim, AIUI, is that to not participate in a certain political cause--to remain neutral--is equivalent to joining with the opponents of the cause. IOW, "inaction is action," "you're with us or you're against us," etc.

> And, frankly, you sound a bit condescending.

Wow, two thought-provoking questions and a friendly statement, and I've already condescended. How dare I, right?

Keep HN'ing, mate!

[adwn]

> Yes, I know--offering obvious expository answers to obviously rhetorical questions is how discussions work around here. ;)

That's not the point. It's okay to pose rhetorical questions, and it's okay to address a specific user with genuine questions. It is not okay, however, to ask a specific user rhetorical, leading questions, because that makes it seem like you want to "win" this discussion.

[useragent86]

So, according to 'adwn, it's "not okay" to ask rhetorical questions to make a point in a conversation, because 'adwn feels like he can read the intentions in my mind, and they're ignoble.

Pretty sure that reading my mind and accusing me of bad faith is a violation of The Guidelines. Maybe you should take a leave of absence from the HN Volunteer Police Department.

[lawnchair_larry]

He’s fine, I gave him permission.