Re:FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid emp...
by dragonwriter on Thursday September 17, 2020 @09:58PM
(#24512186)
Your conflation of passive inaction with an active choice to refrain from certain action is absurd.
Re:FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid emp...
by IncRnd on Thursday September 17, 2020 @10:06PM
(#24512223)
1. People who live in the Congo may consciously choose not to become involved in Candian politics. It is absurd to think that is political.
2. You wrote: Your conflation of passive inaction with an active choice to refrain from certain action is absurd.
That is only meaningful as a circular definitio0n. Choosing not to act differs from an inability to act. Why? How would you define the difference between the action of not acting and the action of not acting, because of not making a choice to act?
Re:FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid emp...
by dragonwriter on Thursday September 17, 2020 @10:11PM
(#24512245)
> How would you define the difference between the action of not acting and the action of not acting, because of not making a choice to act?
I wouldn't, because not making a choice to act in a particular way is very different from making a choice to avoid as policy acting in that way, or, as was at issue upthread, “Taking a stance to not” act in a particular way. Taking a stance is (for this subject matter, at least) political. Inaction on its own is not.
That's simply not true. One can verify the truth or falsehood of your statement by applying the knife of logic. Draw your statement to its logical conclusion in order to determine if it results in absurdity.
Let's do that.
A person who has had their brain surgically removed will (quite probably) never mention politics or attempt to control other's communications about politics. According to your statement, that person's actions are political. Sorry, but that's absurd.