Originally posted by Silent Master
Too bad he refuses to employ honesty.
Wait...I swear this is like an Abbot and Costello skit.
Manners is with Honesty in the unemployment line. They have not been employed for a long time. Some people think Manners and Honesty are lost forever.
Are you looking for Trouble? Gainfully employed with Shutup.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don’t get how you deliniate the support of an organization and support of its core cause as something different. And the fact that he attended a BLM rallyI find it highly unlikely that he did not know it was a BLM protest... I mean come on, man! :/
Many Californians were opposed to Proposition 8, and participated in demonstrations after it passed, but were are also critical of the Equality for All organization, which was organized to oppose Proposition 8. Those things are not mutually exclusive, and it is really so basic, it should not have to be explained, unless you are making some bad faith argument.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Many Californians were opposed to Proposition 8, and participated in demonstrations after it passed, but were are also critical of the Equality for All organization, which was organized to oppose Proposition 8. Those things are not mutually exclusive, and it is really so basic, it should not have to be explained, unless you are making some bad faith argument.
Being critical of an organization does not mean you do not support it. The word is “support”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
“To promote the interests and cause of”
Especially with regards to the evidence that is available. You are asking ppl to move into mind reading territory here to differentiate the two.
I mean, a lot of ppl who post here enjoy labeling ppl “Trumpers” or “alt right” with a very very very wide brush. Then suddenly we have to have a very precise and nuanced differentiation of “support an organization vs support its cause”?
I’m not saying you’re one of those ppl since I don’t follow your posts. Are you saying that affiliation vs support needs to be extremely nuanced to the point of mind-reading intentions(y/n)? Because I would like to know what your standard is.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Being critical of an organization does not mean you do not support it. The word is “support”.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
“To promote the interests and cause of”
Especially with regards to the evidence that is available. You are asking ppl to move into mind reading territory here to differentiate the two.
I mean, a lot of ppl who post here enjoy labeling ppl “Trumpers” or “alt right” with a very very very wide brush. Then suddenly we have to have a very precise and nuanced differentiation of “support an organization vs support its cause”?
I’m not saying you’re one of those ppl since I don’t follow your posts. Are you saying that affiliation vs support needs to be extremely nuanced to the point of mind-reading intentions(y/n)? Because I would like to know what your standard is.
The difference is that they are supporting a common cause, not each other. You are twisting yourself into knots to make it seem like those things are synonymous, and they are not. American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and The Satanic Temple all support church-state separation, but they sure as hell do not support one another.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that they are supporting a common cause, not each other. You are twisting yourself into knots to make it seem like those things are synonymous, and they are not. American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and The Satanic Temple all support church-state separation, but they sure as hell do not support one another.
People get raked over the coals all the time for supporting something someone else supports though.
The KKK being for anything turns that support toxic.
Originally posted by cdtm
People get raked over the coals all the time for supporting something someone else supports though.The KKK being for anything turns that support toxic.
The KKK is domestic terrorist organization. Their only goal is white supremacy. If they support a candidate, it is because he advances their goal of white supremacy. That is why their support is toxic.
Atheists, Christians, and Satanists can all support church-state separation, while having wildly divergent views about other issues and each other, because while their association may be controversial to one another and others, their shared goal is not. When a cause is pro-social, people can put their differences aside, and unite around a common good.
That is why church-state separation is supported by a diverse coalition, and white supremacy stands alone.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that they are supporting a common cause, not each other. You are twisting yourself into knots to make it seem like those things are synonymous, and they are not. American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and The Satanic Temple all support church-state separation, but they sure as hell do not support one another.
I feel you are projecting the whole “twisting in knots” narrative here to attempt a gotcha where none exists. I specifically stated “core cause” (not segments of a cause) ergo if I supported freedom from religion during a freedom from religion rally, I would be a freedom from religion supporter. You attempting to partialize the “causes” is a basic strawman of my point.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I feel you are projecting the whole “twisting in knots” narrative here to attempt a gotcha where none exists. I specifically stated “core cause” (not segments of a cause) ergo if I supported freedom from religion during a freedom from religion rally, I would be a freedom from religion supporter. You attempting to partialize the “causes” is a basic strawman of my point.
Um, no. If Freedom from Religion Foundation organized a rally to support church-state separation, then the attendees would be supporters of church-state separation, not necessarily of Freedom from Religion Foundation.
Specifically, members of American Atheists and The Satanic Temple also support church-state separation, but do not necessarily support Freedom from Religion Foundation on principle. But their shared goal of stopping encroaching theocracy is enough to put their differences aside for this rally.
You just desperately want to paint the supporters of racial justice with the brush of Black Lives Matter to support your argument and it is not working out for you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1) Um, no. If Freedom from Religion Foundation organized a rally to support church-state separation, then the attendees would be supporters of church-state separation, not necessarily of Freedom from Religion Foundation.Specifically, members of American Atheists and The Satanic Temple also support church-state separation, but do not necessarily support Freedom from Religion Foundation on principle. But their shared goal of stopping encroaching theocracy is enough to put their differences aside for this rally.
2) You just desperately want to paint the supporters of racial justice with the brush of Black Lives Matter to support your argument and it is not working out for you.
1) I was very specific about “core cause” meaning the central principles and causes of an organization and that one made an action that promoted the interests of it.
2) And even in your example: it still seems like they supported each other (for that rally) to me even when they clearly disagree on certain points. You do not have to agree 100% with an organization to support it in some form. Again, let me point you to the definition of support:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
Support
2 a(1): to promote the interests or cause of.
Are we using different definitions here? Can you point me to your dictionary? So we can reach an understanding?
But hey, I’m willing to keep an open mind. Just so we can be clear:
You are saying that a person who gives some form of support to an organization/group in promoting said group’s causes/interests is NOT necesarily a supporter of said group? (Y/N)?
And how would you define a “supporter”?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) I was very specific about “core cause” meaning the central principles and causes of an organization and that one made an action that promoted the interests of it.2) And even in your example: it still seems like they supported each other (for that rally) to me even when they clearly disagree on certain points. You do not have to agree 100% with an organization to support it in some form. Again, let me point you to the definition of support:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
Support
2 a(1): to promote the interests or cause of.Are we using different definitions here? Can you point me to your dictionary? So we can reach an understanding?
But hey, I’m willing to keep an open mind. Just so we can be clear:
You are saying that a person who gives some form of support to an organization/group in promoting said group’s causes/interests is NOT necesarily a supporter of said group? (Y/N)?
And how would you define a “supporter”?
No, you keep conflating support for a cause with support for a group who is organized, at least in part, to advance that cause. Those are not the same thing, period. Because outside of the common cause, people may not support that group or the other things it stands for. This is not difficult.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, you keep conflating support for a cause with support for a group who is organized, at least in part, to advance that cause. Those are not the same thing, period. Because outside of the common cause, people may not support that group or the other things it stands for. This is not difficult.
I didn’t say “common cause” I specifically said an organization’s “core cause”.