Not any more than the management of Safeway tacitly approving of you becoming obese or getting diabetes to selling you various carbohydrates.
Versus, say, rationing and strict diet control from some other authority. Or all carbs are free. Or any other variety of other systems.
It doesn't mean they encourage poor outcomes, since typically poor outcomes is bad for business. Nor are they responsible. But they do approve that this system is good and participate in it.
And you can make your own judgement call if you think this system is "good" and one you want to participate in.
No. You are completely misusing the word here.
> understood without being openly expressed; implied:
Now look at the usage of the word:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tacitly
> tacitly - in a tacit manner; by unexpressed agreement; "they are tacitly expected to work 10 hours a day"
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacitly
I don't think I will be continuing this conversation with you.
So, agreement not by words, but by implied means (action or inaction) seems a fitting usage of the word tacit.
Similarly, from the definition of tacit from which tacitly is derived, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit
1. Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.
2. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: Management has given its tacit approval to the plan.
3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.
EDIT: formatting
You are just stretching the definition so broadly it is meaningless.
Those who refuse to sell and/or consume alcohol don't believe it's an OK system.
Therefore, actions indicate belief and agreement of a system, in this case exchange of money for alcohol. Or, tacit agreement with the system.
And? That is their belief. Which is fine. There is a middle ground of accepting that some people can live their whole lives having no problem with it while other people can't.
> Therefore, actions indicate belief and agreement of a system, in this case exchange of money for alcohol. Or, tacit agreement with the system.
No they don't because you are stretching the definition to the point where it doesn't really make sense.
The proper meaning of a tacit agreement is something like "They put a playstation in the break room, but everyone knows they shouldn't be seen playing it when the boss is in the office".
Not this "By not taking action against a system you are agreeing with the existing system". This is completely ridiculous because using your logic you can always define being almost completely passive as support for whatever you aren't acting against.
It is a ridiculous usage of the term. I shouldn't be surprised tbh as you completely engage in newspeak. I won't be replying to you again as you are quite clearly dishonest.
The fact that smokers are capable of making their own choices is irrelevant. I also smoke cigars, and if I decide to sell cigarettes or cigars, I am tacitly approving of some portion of my customers getting lung cancer, throat cancer, whatever.
That's literally what the word "tacit" means: Implied by or inferred from actions or statements.
I sell cigarettes, you can infer quite reasonably that I approve of a world in which some of the people ho give me money wind up with cancer.
Period, full stop. Why are we working so hard to give people wiggle room on this?
When it comes to firearm sales, pro-gun people will tell us that it's a shame about all those dead kids, but the greater good is served by having the freedom to own firearms with few restrictions or impediments.
Those people have no problem understanding that we make choices, and some of those choices lead to unpleasant outcomes, but we tacitly approve of those unpleasant outcomes as part of approving of some other outcome we value more.
That's simple responsibility.