If you don't speak out, you're complicit?

@BlueMetalChick Like I had said, I do agree with the term under certain circumstances such as positions that are objectively true/false. I just see too many arguments using this rhetoric to conclude that;
"If you disagree with me on 'x', then you are a 'y'"

@MistyCee You're fine. I didn't feel as if I were being attacked. My main argument is just that it is not an absolute and is situational. I may have not explained it very well or it may just be irrelevant. There are endless examples of people using this phrase to attack others when their own position is just logically, morally (in regards to well being) , or factually incorrect. I was more or less looking to falsify my opinion on the matter just to see if I am thinking logically and reasonably or if I'm overlooking something. To me it seems to presuppose motivations for one's inaction on a topic. In order to prove somebody's complicity, under normal circumstances you would have to demonstrate motivation or intent. Am I missing something?

@TheSeptikSkeptik Wow. Pretty deep.

I'm going to go with a simple, pretty standard response and say it's complicated.

Clearly it often is situational, and just as clearly, the situation varies with the individuals involved, especially with a label like "complicit?"

Is a five year old complicit in abuse?

What about a ten year old?

Or an 18 year old who's learned he likes doing to other little boys what was done to him?

That last one is probably worse than just complicit in a lot of people's eyes, but turn it into a mother who was molested by her father and let's her daughter get molested by her grandfather?

@MistyCee Thank you. That was basically the point that I was trying to get at. It's not an absolute. Anybody can be wrong about their beliefs, including people who are emotionally invested in the sentiment of that phrase. I was just having trouble putting it into more relatable words and explaining it. When you use that phrase, it makes a whole host of unfalsifiable logical implications that would be near impossible to demonstrate to be true.

@Riverman No need to apologize. It's a complicated question. I can see that, but at the same time, The Christian religion heavily borrowed from/followed along with other predated moral codes which was likely just a product of social evolution. All pack animals have strict social boundaries to ensure the survival of their species and have done so with no knowledge of a higher power.

Now, we have come a long way in regards to individual liberties since the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were forged. Most of the progress that we have made in regards to changing our principles for the better has been against the wishes of the more populist American religious. The Christian churches were vehemently against the abolition of slavery and the abolition of Jim Crow laws. What I'm trying to say is that the basic principles may have been founded on religion, but it's for the best that we have followed a more rational and secular morality. I think that many people today would agree that slavery is objectively immoral and would largely dismiss/disagree with, the biblical position on slavery. Appealing to traditional or cultural values still doesn't bring us to an objective truth or knowledge of who is right/wrong.

@TheSeptikSkeptik This topic is worthy of much more time than I can dedicate at the moment. I would like to talk again later. Just let me say that I agree with most of what you say.

This is just my opinion,for whatever it's worth. I am a Christian however, I believe that the Christian Church as a whole had failed us miserably. They have depart so far from the Bible as to be unrecognizable. Much of the what we have today in terms of individual rights has been achieved and/or preserved with no thanks to them. Hope to talk again.

@Riverman What do you consider evil and how can you demonstrate that what one believe's is true or not?

@TexChik I have a few problems with this statement. First, evil needs to be defined and demonstrated otherwise the argument is just "If you don't believe in what I believe in, you're my enemy."

@TheSeptikSkeptik sounds like liberal nonsense to me . Evil is evil , as in good vs evil .

@TexChik It's actually called reasoning and it isn't politically biased. It's a tried and true methodology like mathematics and science. Your comment also expresses exactly what I was talking about. Dichotomous thinking. You are just creating a false dichotomy between people who agree with you on a subject and those who do not. What is "evil" to you? How do you define it? Then, how do you demonstrate that what you believe falls under the criteria that you have set for good/evil?

@Blodyn What if both sides are just objectively wrong? Seems to me like just a presupposition of motivation. To prove complicity, you have to demonstrate intent.

In the case of Brexit we didn’t know. Now I would hard to stay in the EU. I wasn’t old enough to vote but I would have voted to leave. But now I would remain. I think most people would.

@TeresaRudolph71 What if somebody is just ignorant to the entire subject? Should they just blindly choose sides without having the necessary information to properly form an opinion?
I'm just saying that the phrase isn't always an absolute and is often used in arguments like "If you don't agree with me on x, then you are a y." It's basically the same as saying, "If you are not with us, you are against us." Which is dichotomous thinking. It is basically creating a false dichotomy between those who agree with you and every one else, including those who are ignorant to the cause. I just see it used a lot by people who are blatantly wrong about their cause or people who fail to see nuance. My question actually originates from one specific example- A 9/11 "truther" covered in signs on the street yells this out to people in public which he accuses every one else of being stupid for not believing his claims. Well not his claims, popular 9/11 "truther" claims.