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?
> 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.
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.
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!