• 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
T

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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
 
The validity of an idea is not affected by the person who holds it. That's basic logic.
 
Yes. There are issues I sort of support but don't really care that much about that the militant supporters make it very difficult to continue to support. Gay marriage is the perfect example. I am ok with it because it doesn't affect me one way or the other nor would it ever really, but then people here have been up in my grill because I do not see denial of marriage as some great big oppressive thing or think that the harms gays have suffered as a group compare anywhere close to the civil rights struggles of blacks.
 
Harshaw said:
The validity of an idea is not affected by the person who holds it. That's basic logic.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is. The idea can be shaped by the views and intentions of those in control. One's support or opposition to the plan is at least going to be based on the perception of the likely results.
 
Fiddytree said:
On the contrary, it is. The idea can be shaped by the views and intentions of those in control.
Click to expand...

No, an idea is an idea. It holds up to reason or it doesn't. If it's "shaped," it becomes a different idea.
 
Harshaw said:
No, an idea is an idea. It holds up to reason or it doesn't. If it's "shaped," it becomes a different idea.
Click to expand...

And what of Communism? Does our support of it decline once we see replicated instances of what has occurred as a result of pursuing this-even though you can make the argument that the Soviet Union is not Communism?
 
Fiddytree said:
And what of Communism? Does our support of it decline once we see replicated instances of what has occurred as a result of pursuing this-even though you can make the argument that the Soviet Union is not Communism?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for you, but my opposition to it doesn't have anything to do with the individual people involved in it.

And here you're not even arguing for that. You're referring to the practical effect of it each time it's been tried, which isn't about personalities, but empirical result.
 
Harshaw said:
I can't speak for you, but my opposition to it doesn't have anything to do with the individual people involved in it.

And here you're not even arguing for that. You're referring to the practical effect of it each time it's been tried, which isn't about personalities, but empirical result.
Click to expand...

The idea of Communism through Marx could have been argued to have been desirable, but the viewpoints and actions of its supporters could have "corrupted" the "true" vision of Communism, creating a "new idea" of Communism-the militaristic totalitarianism distrusted today.
 
Fiddytree said:
The idea of Communism through Marx could have been argued to have been desirable, but the viewpoints and actions of its supporters could have "corrupted" the "true" vision of Communism, creating a "new idea" of Communism-the militaristic totalitarianism distrusted today.
Click to expand...

Then you judge the idea as espoused by Marx differently than the idea as espoused by the others. If they're separate ideas, then they're separate ideas.

In no case is the validity a matter of who holds the idea, though.
 
Harshaw said:
Then you judge the idea as espoused by Marx differently than the idea as espoused by the others. If they're separate ideas, then they're separate ideas.

In no case is the validity a matter of who holds the idea, though.
Click to expand...

The idea has to be implemented, and those who are implementing it are human. The idea frequently becomes filtered through that lens and is shaped by it. It adds another layer to the conversation about the worth of the idea as a result.
 
Harshaw said:
Then you judge the idea as espoused by Marx differently than the idea as espoused by the others. If they're separate ideas, then they're separate ideas.

In no case is the validity a matter of who holds the idea, though.
Click to expand...
But an idea can be fine on its own. It can be the implementation of the idea by particular people that is the problem.
 
Fiddytree said:
The idea has to be implemented, and those who are implementing it are human. The idea frequently becomes filtered through that lens and is shaped by it. It adds another layer to the conversation about the worth of the idea as a result.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...



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:
 
Fiddytree said:
The idea has to be implemented, and those who are implementing it are human. The idea frequently becomes filtered through that lens and is shaped by it. It adds another layer to the conversation about the worth of the idea as a result.
Click to expand...

I've always said that every ideal for humanity is perfect(be it religious, political, etc....) until actual people start trying to implement it. Where all ideas fail, is that they expect everybody to react and behave in an ideal manner.
 
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...

Ideas that are meant to operate under a human realm frequently do not constrict themselves to simple logic.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
But an idea can be fine on its own. It can be the implementation of the idea by particular people that is the problem.
Click to expand...

That isn't what you were asking about:

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?
Click to expand...
 
Fiddytree said:
Ideas that are meant to operate under a human realm frequently do not constrict themselves to simple logic.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with their logical validity.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
But an idea can be fine on its own. It can be the implementation of the idea by particular people that is the problem.
Click to expand...

so true. One thing that happens a lot in politics is how perverted an idealistic core can become once it's been taken up by the 'wrong' people. Just look at the tea party. A core ideal of fiscal conservatism and reduced government intrusion in private life was co-opted by wealthy republican interests to motivate religious and poorly informed white people to whatever end was most politically beneficial. I can support the ideals of the tea party, but you wont catch me at a rally or donating to their cause - specifically due to the type of person the movement has come to attract.
 
Harshaw said:
That isn't what you were asking about:
Click to expand...
That's what you and Fiddy were talking about. I was responding directly to your comment to Fiddy, obviously.
 
Harshaw said:
It doesn't have anything to do with their logical validity.
Click to expand...

This is why you need to free yourself from your views of logic. If a popular movement of people wanted to increase funds for medical research of my disability, but did so out of a belief that I ought not exist, I would distrust it immediately and not wish to seek it through if the outcome was likely to be shaped by that idea.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's what you and Fiddy were talking about. I was responding directly to your comment to Fiddy, obviously.
Click to expand...

And I already responded to it -- if people change the idea, then the changed idea needs to be judged on its own. But the validity of the idea itself still wouldn't have anything to do with who holds it.
 
Fiddytree said:
This is why you need to free yourself from your views of logic.
Click to expand...

I don't need to. And I don't have a "view" of logic. Logic just is.


If a popular movement of people wanted to increase funds for medical research of my disability, but did so out of a belief that I ought not exist, I would distrust it immediately and not wish to seek it through if the outcome was likely to be shaped by that idea.
Click to expand...

Then that's a horrible idea, no matter who holds it.
 
Harshaw said:
Then that's a horrible idea, no matter who holds it.
Click to expand...

As a result, I abhor Autism Speaks and much of the revived medical research movement, though they proclaim to do so out of generosity and humanitarian reasons.
 
Fiddytree said:
As a result, I abhor Autism Speaks and much of the revived medical research movement, though they proclaim to do so out of generosity and humanitarian reasons.
Click to expand...

OK, then you have a problem with the whole idea and its arguments.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, then you have a problem with the whole idea and its arguments.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom