Is there a practical difference between someone choosing to join your cause and your coercing someone to join your cause?
Is there a practical difference between someone choosing to remain uninvolved and someone choosing to join the opponents of 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.
That's not how discussions work around here. And, frankly, you sound a bit condescending.
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!
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.
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.
It’s an extremely common philosophy that if your actions aren’t politically motivated then you’re being apolitical but I don’t think that works in the real world because those actions have real political effects/consequences regardless of whether you considered them or not.