• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?

Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?

  • Total voters
    22
Fiddytree said:
The idea of medical research on the disability I do not have a problem with. The supporters' implied view of people with disabilities, I do. Though the idea is to increase medical research of disability, if its continued presence meant that policy-makers would adopt the movement's implied ableism, I would stand opposed to more medical research.
Click to expand...

Then you have a problem with those views, whoever holds them. Would you NOT have a problem with them if someone you really, really liked held them? I doubt that very much.
 
Of course, in terms of public perception. Many will choose to look beyond the surface of their proposal and instead at the prior history of said supporters and their potential motives. Gun control being a good example, same sex marriage another.
 
For the Liberals, there is a uniting factor that induces sworn enemies to jump into bed with each other. This transcends any disgust with the other members. The Liberal uniting factor is hate, hatred of those who would oppose their individual agenda.

Look at the shrieking occupants of that big, multi-colored, diverse Liberal circus tent, the diverse Liberal client groups. There is no love lost between them. In fact, many hate each other, but they all have the common uniting factor of hatred of traditionalist Conservatives. For this reason, we see their automatic response of all supporting each other.

How will this play out when one faction becomes dominant and begins to suppress another faction? We are seeing the beginning of this right now with the Mexicans driving the blacks out of California. Because of media suppression and the fact of being low information voters, there has not yet been a reaction from the blacks. Soon the numbers will be so great that it will be impossible to suppress and both groups will look to their beloved government to settle their irreconcilable differences. My prediction is that Liberal affairs will become very bad at that time.
 
Wow, didn't think Ray would be able to successfully interject his dislike for both Mexicans and African Americans into a completely unrelated topic. Impressive stuff.
 
The prime example of harming a movement is Al Gore as the poster boy for global warming. The man's actions in his personal life, living in a large house, flying all over the world, selling his tv network to Al Jazeera and the Saudi oil money, etc. The man is a fraud and he's played many for fools in order to enrich his own life.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't know what to say other than what I already have. An idea is valid, or it isn't. That is so no matter who holds or doesn't hold the idea. That is simple logic. To tie the validity of the idea to the person holding it is a basic fallacy.
Click to expand...

No, whether ideas are valid or invalid depends in large measure on the circumstances. Population control makes sense in overpopulated areas. Less densely populated areas...not so valid.
 
sangha said:
No, whether ideas are valid or invalid depends in large measure on the circumstances. Population control makes sense in overpopulated areas. Less densely populated areas...not so valid.
Click to expand...

This doesn't speak to anything I said.
 
Goshin said:
Hm, that's an interesting question.

From pure logic and reason, the answer probably should be No... a cause or position is what it is, regardless of the quality or tenor of those supporting it. However we are human beings, and do not operate solely on logic and reason... emotion is a factor, and if the advocates of Position X are such that we find them really disgusting, it will tend to color our perceptions of Position X in most cases.

It isn't too far fetched to say if one joins in the hypothetical Million Morons March, and looks around and starts wondering "am I the only sane and reasonable person here??" that one might start to question whatever it is the million morons are marching about... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I think you have some of this right, but I would differ on some things. I think I am just a little more systematic in my approach...

I do think it is legitimate to consider the character of people who engage in a belief as a temporary measure of the likelihood that a belief is valid. Such a manner of acceptance or rejection of things may even be a longer term alternative to thinking it through yourself, if the matter is not of especial importance.

But for things that are in high controversy as current affairs, I don't think that considering who believes something is a legitimate way to consider a matter. We do have responsibilities as citizens to our fellow citizens. One of those responsibilities is to be informed and to perform logical analysis of the things with which society is currently contending. Logical fallacies have no legitimate use in this responsibility.

I do agree with you fully though about joining with a million morons... one should probably question the thoroughness of one's analysis in such a situation :)
 
Definitely.
Exhibit A) Look at the Tea Party. It started as a libertarian minded, grass roots organization that protested all overspending, liberty infringing politicians no matter their party. This is evidenced by the fact that the Tea Party started during Pres Bush the younger's 2nd term, not during Pres Obama's 1st term as is popularly believed. However, as the movement gained momentum, more and more hangers on accumulated. Some examples are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. All of them gained the "Tea Party" vote or support at one point or another despite the fact that all of them infringe on other's liberty's and/or do not have fiscally conservative roots. This, and some of the racist idiots that show up to the rally's have ruined what began as a peaceful and respectable movement. I still support it because I know what it was and what it still is at it's roots. Plus, I'm not paying to change my username.:2razz:

Exhibit B) Environmental groups in general. I am a nature lover. I hunt, fish, hike, etc with my son all the time. I teach him never to kill an animal (including bugs) unless he plans to eat it, it is a threat to him, or it is destroying property that would not be easily repaired (such as a vehicle or house). I severely frown upon trophy hunting and teach him it's wrong. We recycle everything. We grocery shop with re-usable grocery bags. We use cloth diapers. I could go on and on. But, with groups like Greenpeace and PETA, it sets a generally radical and over reaching precedence for a lot of people. A lot of people, especially in the south, associate the save the earth stuff with idiots like that. They marginalize people like me who are not radical but are simply doing what we believe God intended us to do. Take care of the Earth. Despite what many will say or post, peer pressure and the need to fit in are huge factors in stuff like this. If someone feels they will be lumped in with groups such as these for throwing a save the earth bumper sticker on their vehicle or for being anal about recycling, they won't do it. Thats the superficial nation we live in.

Exhibit C) Christians. Not all of us are gay hating bigots despite the effort to characterize us as such. Do I think gay marriage is right? No. But I don't believe I should force my beliefs upon others through gov't regulation either. I don't hate gay people because they're gay. Gay is not some special sin that is much worse than others. Being gay is a sin (in my opinion) just like any other sin. It doesn't make gay people extra bad people. The fact that I'm not gay doesn't put me in the position to judge someone who is. I do believe a gay person could go to heaven. Anyone, if they honestly ask the Lord for salvation, will be accepted into heaven upon their death. The Bible doesn't say "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life note; except gay people."
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?

In other words, if you support the principles, ideals and arguments of a movement, but you find the movement's advocates repulsive, does that affect your willingness to support that movement? Similarly, if you support the arguments, et al. of a movement and you love its supports, does that make you fight for it harder? Even further, if you don't agree with the arguments, et al. of a movement, but you admire and respect its advocates, does that admiration and respect make you reconsider your position or support them in spite of your reservations?

Example: You are against same sex marriage morally and you support it politically, but you've interacted primarily with militant gay rights activists who castigate anyone who differs with them even a bit. Do those people reduce your willingness to support gay rights?

Thread inspired, in part, by this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/155307-you-make-so-hard-me-love-you-baby.html
Click to expand...
Great thread by the way.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Definitely.
Exhibit A) Look at the Tea Party. It started as a libertarian minded, grass roots organization that protested all overspending, liberty infringing politicians no matter their party. This is evidenced by the fact that the Tea Party started during Pres Bush the younger's 2nd term, not during Pres Obama's 1st term as is popularly believed. However, as the movement gained momentum, more and more hangers on accumulated. Some examples are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. All of them gained the "Tea Party" vote or support at one point or another despite the fact that all of them infringe on other's liberty's and/or do not have fiscally conservative roots. This, and some of the racist idiots that show up to the rally's have ruined what began as a peaceful and respectable movement. I still support it because I know what it was and what it still is at it's roots. Plus, I'm not paying to change my username.:2razz:

Exhibit B) Environmental groups in general. I am a nature lover. I hunt, fish, hike, etc with my son all the time. I teach him never to kill an animal (including bugs) unless he plans to eat it, it is a threat to him, or it is destroying property that would not be easily repaired (such as a vehicle or house). I severely frown upon trophy hunting and teach him it's wrong. We recycle everything. We grocery shop with re-usable grocery bags. We use cloth diapers. I could go on and on. But, with groups like Greenpeace and PETA, it sets a generally radical and over reaching precedence for a lot of people. A lot of people, especially in the south, associate the save the earth stuff with idiots like that. They marginalize people like me who are not radical but are simply doing what we believe God intended us to do. Take care of the Earth. Despite what many will say or post, peer pressure and the need to fit in are huge factors in stuff like this. If someone feels they will be lumped in with groups such as these for throwing a save the earth bumper sticker on their vehicle or for being anal about recycling, they won't do it. Thats the superficial nation we live in.

Exhibit C) Christians. Not all of us are gay hating bigots despite the effort to characterize us as such. Do I think gay marriage is right? No. But I don't believe I should force my beliefs upon others through gov't regulation either. I don't hate gay people because they're gay. Gay is not some special sin that is much worse than others. Being gay is a sin (in my opinion) just like any other sin. It doesn't make gay people extra bad people. The fact that I'm not gay doesn't put me in the position to judge someone who is. I do believe a gay person could go to heaven. Anyone, if they honestly ask the Lord for salvation, will be accepted into heaven upon their death. The Bible doesn't say "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life note; except gay people."
Click to expand...

One more thing about PETA: they are against using animals for medical research, even if it is benificial to society
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?

In other words, if you support the principles, ideals and arguments of a movement, but you find the movement's advocates repulsive, does that affect your willingness to support that movement? Similarly, if you support the arguments, et al. of a movement and you love its supports, does that make you fight for it harder? Even further, if you don't agree with the arguments, et al. of a movement, but you admire and respect its advocates, does that admiration and respect make you reconsider your position or support them in spite of your reservations?

Example: You are against same sex marriage morally and you support it politically, but you've interacted primarily with militant gay rights activists who castigate anyone who differs with them even a bit. Do those people reduce your willingness to support gay rights?

Thread inspired, in part, by this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/155307-you-make-so-hard-me-love-you-baby.html
Click to expand...

Cheers.

To summarize my own stance, does it affect the validity of the stance itself? No.

Does it affect the validity of the movement built around that stance? Yes.

A position is what it is, and if you have a good reason for holding it, it doesn't matter if someone else has stupid reasons for holding it. But it can definitely steer the movement in the wrong direction, either by extremist implementation or by driving people away from their own cause.
 
Yeah, the gun issue is actually the one I was thinking of when I saw the thread title. I'm a pretty strong supporter of the right to own guns, and I know most gun control legislation isn't very effective, but I don't join gun advocacy groups like the NRA because of the vocal lunatic fringe associated with them (among other reasons).

PETA is another good example. I do believe in being kind to animals and treating them well. Even farm animals who are going to be butchered don't need to be abused the way they sometimes are. But again, I refuse to associate myself with the group because of the nutcases who throw paint on fur coats and insist everyone else be a vegan, and break into farms to let the animals out.
 
I'm against breathing, because Hitler was for it.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yeah, the gun issue is actually the one I was thinking of when I saw the thread title. I'm a pretty strong supporter of the right to own guns, and I know most gun control legislation isn't very effective, but I don't join gun advocacy groups like the NRA because of the vocal lunatic fringe associated with them (among other reasons).

PETA is another good example. I do believe in being kind to animals and treating them well. Even farm animals who are going to be butchered don't need to be abused the way they sometimes are. But again, I refuse to associate myself with the group because of the nutcases who throw paint on fur coats and insist everyone else be a vegan, and break into farms to let the animals out.
Click to expand...
I actually hadn't thought of PETA which is surprising because it's definitely an organization that hurts the animal rights movement. I'm so turned off by their behavior and by the extremism of many of their arguments as are many others.
 
Yes itdoes. For example if I am a supporter of something it makes it perfectly valid.
 
Goshin said:
Hm, that's an interesting question.

From pure logic and reason, the answer probably should be No... a cause or position is what it is, regardless of the quality or tenor of those supporting it. However we are human beings, and do not operate solely on logic and reason... emotion is a factor, and if the advocates of Position X are such that we find them really disgusting, it will tend to color our perceptions of Position X in most cases.

It isn't too far fetched to say if one joins in the hypothetical Million Morons March, and looks around and starts wondering "am I the only sane and reasonable person here??" that one might start to question whatever it is the million morons are marching about... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I usually consider the supporters or opponents claim.

For example when you say "million morons march" I know where you are comong from, a biased opinion.
 
Separating a movement from it's supporters is practically impossible. It, whatever the movement is, is only a movement because of its supporters, and they will invariably be judged by those viewing the movement. No matter how much we try to avoid it, human nature is inescapable. It is not unusual at all to realize that you may support this or that, but when looking at those participating in the movement, you conclude that while you may support the idea, you're not about to be associated with those people. That reality is the fodder of the media.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I usually consider the supporters or opponents claim.

For example when you say "million morons march" I know where you are comong from, a biased opinion.
Click to expand...
Every opinion is biased, and I'm biased when I say that. Everybody adds flavor to oatmeal.
 
well the gun control movement presents a facade that crime control is their goal when in reality, the gun control advocates are really seeking to punish those who oppose gun control because we who oppose gun control TEND to be libertarians or conservatives who oppose welfare socialism and nanny state government

Almost every advocate of gun restrictions is a fan of nanny state government

so in the case of gun control, the movement favoring that cancer are almost completely motivated by those who support gun rights
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Not, everybody. You sure seem biased to me, lol.
Click to expand...
You have to consider the source, which does prove that it's hard, if not impossible, to separate a movement from it's participants. And those who don't add flavor to their oatmeal need to be suppressed and eventually wiped out. I will not be made out to be liar.
 
humbolt said:
You have to consider the source, which does prove that it's hard, if not impossible, to separate a movement from it's participants. And those who don't add flavor to their oatmeal need to be suppressed and eventually wiped out. I will not be made out to be liar.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Humbolt.

It's interesting to wonder what might motivate a person to join a particular movement. You'd either have to feel strongly about something, OR you're following what might be the "flavor of the day" that your party is pushing for political reasons. :shrug:
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Humbolt.

It's interesting to wonder what might motivate a person to join a particular movement. You'd either have to feel strongly about something, OR you're following what might be the "flavor of the day" that your party is pushing for political reasons. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Morning Pol. I think most are motivated at the core by selfish reasons - not coldly self-serving motivations maybe, but an eagerness to be associated with something viewed as virtuous. Something like, "the movement is virtuous, I support the movement, and therefore I am virtuous as well."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom