Complicity

[El_Machinae]

So, when looking at 'complicity', how about an instance where someone evil is going to do worse things because they think you won't object?

You failing to signal that you will object is in some ways causal to the event occuring.

 

[Gorbles]

@Manfred Belheim

The world isn't America, nor should you assume it is. The world isn't the UK either.

Hence why it was an example, but unfortunately this appears to be something that you're not getting, because (aside from the very silly notion that "gay rights" is a solved problem in US and / or UK law, nevermind society) you automatically defaulted to assuming that my example was relevant to only those countries, and only to this point in time.

Which wasn't the point I was making at all.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

An absolutely lukewarm take.

The non-Jewish german populace, the ones not ctargetted by the Nazis however were.

What an anti-Semitic comment. Not even assigning Jewish people the basic human decency of having the capacity to decide for themselves.

Because if you were allowing for that, it would be incoherent to assert that they were not complicit based on the logic presented in this thread.

You failing to signal that you will object is in some ways causal to the event occuring.

This similarly makes the case that the Jews were complicit in the actions of Hitler and that literally everyone in the USSR was complicit in Stalin's atrocities, even many of the people who were killed.

I reject it on the grounds that this is not a useful way to frame the English word "complicit" and that the actual dictionary definition is more useful.

The fact you call a civil partnership a "bonus right" is staggering proof of this.

Marriage is also a "bonus right"...and the way it's structured is asinine enough that it's a surprise that *anybody* would want "rights" comparable to it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I can see how 'complicit' isn't the right word. So, what would do call the idea of feeding the bully's evil by not confronting it? 'Appeasement' doesn't work. Not quite.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yeah, I can see how 'complicit' isn't the right word. So, what would do call the idea of feeding the bully's evil by not confronting it? 'Appeasement' doesn't work. Not quite.

Tolerate?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

@Manfred Belheim

The world isn't America, nor should you assume it is. The world isn't the UK either.

Hence why it was an example, but unfortunately this appears to be something that you're not getting, because (aside from the very silly notion that "gay rights" is a solved problem in US and / or UK law, nevermind society) you automatically defaulted to assuming that my example was relevant to only those countries, and only to this point in time.

Which wasn't the point I was making at all.

Can I just reiterate that it was a very bad example then? Given that your example doesn't apply in the present day in the societies most people on this board live in. It would be like giving an "example" of someone behaving in an irrational manner, and your example is of a person walking around outdoors without a spacesuit on. "The universe consists of more than planet Earth you know. I never specified he was on Earth did I, but you just defaulted to assuming he was". Yeah okay, great example then.

But if there are rights that gay people are lacking in UK law that apply to straight people I would be glad to be enlightened of them, in all seriousness.

 

[Gorbles]

Can I just reiterate that it was a very bad example then? Given that your example doesn't apply in the present day in the societies most people on this board live in. It would be like giving an "example" of someone behaving in an irrational manner, and your example is of a person walking around outdoors without a spacesuit on. "The universe consists of more than planet Earth you know. I never specified he was on Earth did I, but you just defaulted to assuming he was". Yeah okay, great example then.

But if there are rights that gay people are lacking in UK law that apply to straight people I would be glad to be enlightened of them, in all seriousness.

Examples don't have to be modern to be applicable. They're meant to be theoretical, as is most of this entire discussion. Your assumptions about LGBTQ rights when countries like Russia exist are laughable. The world is not the US. The world is not the UK. LGTBQ rights are not a solved problem in those two countries either, regardless of legislation. You can go and Google this instead of asking me to do it for you, but you won't, because you want me to give individual links that you can then nitpick further. I've seen this style of discussion before, and if you "in all seriousness" were actually interested, you'd actually do some basic reading yourself.

Your analogy involving spacesuits is further evidence of this lack of actual care. It's a complete argument to absurdity, changing the topic, scope and parameters of the argument to make a caricature of my response. It's boring, and I won't fall for that kind of shtick.

• This entire thing came out of me talking about a hypothetical situation where somebody did absolutely nothing to help gay rights. Gay rights, in general. No country mentioned.
• You said here that gay people "have all the same rights". No country mentioned.
• I then criticised you for not even being aware of the cultural situations in both the UK and the US, and you fixated on those all of a sudden despite me calling your original post a complete red herring / distraction from the general example.

The example you're calling a bad example never mentioned a specific country. This forum has people from around the world on it. Stop making assumptions to prop up your argument, because you obviously have very little idea about gay rights around the world. You wouldn't have said "Given that your example doesn't apply in the present day in the societies most people on this board live in" otherwise.