• OldWoodFrame
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    Even if not stronger per se, surely if I said I was going to “protect” you, we would agree that I am “supporting” you. It’s like saying I only promised to make you wealthier, not pay you. They are not literally the same word but paying someone is a way to make them wealthier.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Straight up, if you’re protecting something it should be obvious that you support it

      Otherwise why would you protect it?

      For example: I protect personal privacy because I support the idea of personal privacy

      • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Counter example: “I will protect your right to practice religion, even if I don’t support religion.”

        There are some things worth protecting, regardless if you support it or not.

        • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          But you’re not protecting the religion, you’re protecting the right to practice it, which it seems like you also support. It would be strange to say “I will protect your religion” if you don’t support any aspect of said religion.

          • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Maybe, maybe not. Military and police are two examples of groups that frequently defend/protect people/ideas that individual members don’t support. Doctors and lawyers are legally required to protect their patients/clients within the confines of their practices, but they certainly don’t have to support their patients/clients.

            • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don’t think it is:

              Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it’s laws and it’s fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.

              Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.

              In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it’s basically, “I’m defending / protecting because I support me getting paid.” and the whole argument is kind of moot.

              • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Respectfully disagree. You’re talking about institutions that, frankly, a good chunk of these professions just do not support. Like there is a solid contingent of lawyers that fundamentally disagree with just outcomes since anything can be spun. You’ll find doctors everywhere that don’t support a universal right to life. Police, to be blunt, frequently and demonstrably do not give a shit about the laws they purport to uphold. Military have some brainwashing issues you have to take into account, but frequently their personal beliefs clash with their training.

                In all of these, the professional is legally required to defend certain principles that they might not personally support. I guess they professionally have to support them too, but at that point we’ve gone full circle

                • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I see your point, which is kind of what I meant about the exception for people that are “just there for the gig”. And I agree that when we take those into account, we have people who are legally required to defend/protect things they don’t personally support. I also think taking those people into account is a different kind of discussion, because then we’re talking about people taking an oath to uphold institutions they don’t believe in for self-serving reasons. Whether or not someone can faithfully do that is an interesting discussion in itself.

                  • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    My point, ultimately, is it’s entirely possible to defend something you don’t personally support, which in turn would depend on the definition of support. I think it’s stupid and dangerous to entertain such alternative definitions in the broader context of the presidential oath of office. But it’s not inherently silly for a defense attorney to make the argument.

            • pedalmore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              You seem to be conflating two entirely separate things here. The idea of protesting in general and any individual protest about topic X are entirely different things, only related by the fact that the word protest is in both. Same for all your other examples - you can support a women’s right to choose but be against abortion personally because those are two entirely different things that are logically compatible. This is not the case for defend/support the constitution itself, because there’s only one meaning of the constitution in this context.