Association in decision

[spacial]

This isn't specifically relevant to any transgender issue. It is a reference for rhetoric and will be of interest only to those interested in rhetoric.

There's an essential truth which almost everyone takes for granted, that when an issue is seen to be associated with another, it will affect how most see the first.

Martin Luther King liked X. We all like X

Hitler liked X, Hmmm

And so on.

But the problem with this is it's quite difficult to demonstrate in an argument. It's empiracle. I have looked for references to it beyond empiricism but haven't found an decent sources. Though I'm sure there are many. Whenevern I find one, I always tend to loose it.

I recently found this which is interesting: A survey by MORI where they tested an assertion, firstly by asking people if they agreed with it. Then they added association in the form of two politicians and asked again. The results were very different.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/we-dont-mind-austerity--when-its-not-george-osbornes-idea-or-ed-ballss-for-that-matter-8535192.html?origin=internalSearch

In the late 70s, I wrote a paper on this type of argument, this was association, positive and negative. Though I'm sure there will be more well known references.

It's probably irrelevant to most. I'm sorry if it seems to be a waste of time posting it. But for those interested in rhetoric it's a good reference to hold onto.

[Pica Pica]

There's also the thing where if you start with asking questions which the answer is 'yes' you are more likely to get someone to say yes to a request.