Think of the children: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:22, 3 November 2014 editCirt (talk \| contribs)199,086 editsm →External links: minor edit = alpha sort.← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:44, 3 November 2014 edit undoHerostratus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,248 edits Reverted to revision 627930473 by Omnipaedista (talk): Not an improvement, reverted per WP:BRD. See talk page. (TW)Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{primary sources\|date=July 2013}}
	{{multiple image
	<!-- Essential parameters -->
	\| align = right
	\| direction = vertical
	\| width = 400
	\|header="Think of the children"
	\| image1 = 2003 June 12 Think of the children.jpg
	\| width1 = 1297
	\| alt1 =
	\| caption1 =(June 12, 2003)
	\| image2 = 2007 March 21 You say we should think of the children.jpg
	\| width2 = 1161
	\| alt2 =
	\| caption2 = (March 21, 2007)
	\| image3 = 2007 June 1 Please think of the children.jpg
	\| width3 = 1330
	\| alt3 =
	\| caption3 =(June 1, 2007)
	\|footer = "Think of the children" argument used in the ]
	}}
	'''"Think of the children"''' (and similar ]al phrases including '''"What about the children"''' citing the '''interests of children''') can be used to justify a call to action or inaction. When used as a ], this ] can constitute a potential ].<ref name="meany" /><ref name="jackmarshall" /><ref name="borschke2011" /> The phrase may be used to ] convince the listener to the arguer's point of view, instead of engaging in ]al debate.<ref name="meany" /> It is a popular tactic because of its ability to stop debate based previously in ] and ].<ref name="jackmarshall" /> In this manner ] can be ] towards a source which might not have been the subject of the original dispute.<ref name="jackmarshall" /> The user of the phrase may have a positive motivation for doing so; when used repeatedly by both sides in a dispute there is a tendency for the debate to degrade into ].<ref name="jackmarshall" /> Due to the phrase's emotional impact, its use has the potential to override consideration of all other ]s and standards in society.<ref name="jackmarshall" />

			'''Think of the children''' (and similar phrases citing the '''interests of children''' including '''what about the children''') can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done. When used as a plea for pity, this ] can constitute a potential logical ], while when used as an appeal for sympathy for weaker members of society, or the ] of the long-term health and viability of a society, it can constitute an argument for ] generally accepted as appropriate.{{Citation needed \| reason= Who generally accepts it as apropriate? What separates acceptable and unacceptable arguments? \| date=March 2014}}
	The exhortation has been used by proponents of ] of the ] under the auspices of protecting children from potential danger.<ref name="beattie2009" /> The author of ''Community, Space and Online Censorship'' noted that classifying children in an ] way as ]s in need of protection became a form of ] of the concept of purity.<ref name="beattie2009" /> An article in the ''Journal for Cultural Research'' observed that the phrase grew out of an environment of ], and its increasing use could be likened to the phenomenon of ].<ref name="coleman2011" /> ''Fervid Filmmaking'' discussed use of the phrase in the context of censorship from the ] in the ], and called it a modern version of the "]" term from that era.<ref name="watt2013" /> ''Nobody's Business'' explained that the phrase was without substance and could be equally humorous if swapped for: "How many kittens must die".<ref name="reed2013" />

			It can be seen as:
	"Think of the children" became popularized in society through its repeated usage on the television program '']'' by character ].<ref name="tenbrink2012" /><ref name="shotwell2012" /><ref name="keenanin2" /> The character debuted in 1990 and exclaimed the phrase "Won't somebody please think of the children!" and other variants for ten years on the program.<ref name="tenbrink2012" /><ref name="patrick2000" /><ref name="mclennan2009" /> Often used by the Lovejoy character during a contentious debate by citizens of the ] of ],<ref name="patrick2000" /><ref name="kitrosser2011" /> the phrase was utilized by ''The Simpsons'' writing staff as a form of ] of is actual use in culture.<Ref name="keenanin2" />
			* An argument for the ] from the exigencies of ] or of the adult world in general, such as ], ], or other forms of ].
			* An argument for ] such as ] and the right to ].
			* a ] tool<ref name="time1">{{Cite news \| url =http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/30/michelle-obama-we-gotta-move-forward/ \|date= April 30, 2008 \|work=thepage.time.com \|title = Michelle Obama: "We Gotta Move Forward }}</ref>{{better source\|reason=This is a subjective interpretation used as an example, not a statement in a reliable source\|date=December 2012}}
			* a ] phrase (e.g. "but think of the children")<ref name='Meany'>{{cite book \| last = Meany \| first = John \| authorlink = \|author2=Kate Shuster \| title = Art, argument, and advocacy: mastering parliamentary debate \| publisher = IDEA \| year = 2002 \| location = \| page = 65 \| url = \| doi = \| id = \| isbn = 978-0-9702130-7-5 }}</ref>
			* an ]
			* a ]
			* a ]

			==Occurrence==
	The phrase's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.<ref name="keenangt4" /> ] professor Charles J. Ten Brink wrote in the '']'' that the Lovejoy character's use of "Think of the children" was a most successful form of ] by ''The Simspons'' producers.<ref name="tenbrink2012" /> After its popularization on ''The Simpsons'', actual use of the phrase in debate has been referred to as "Lovejoy's Law",<ref name="keenanin2" /> the "Helen Lovejoy defence", and the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome".<ref name="hunt2014" />

			===As justification for censorship===
	==Debate tactic==
			{{see also\|Content-control software}}
	Authors John Meany and Kate Shuster wrote in their 2002 book ''Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate'' that usage of the phrase in debate was a type of ].<ref name="meany" /> They identified this as a form of an ].<ref name="meany" /> The authors explained that the debater will utilize the phrase in an effort to ] sway members of the listening public instead of engaging in ] discussion.<Ref name="meany" /> Meany and Shuster gave as an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won’t someone ''please'' think of the children?"<ref name="meany">Meany 2002, p. 65.</ref> The assessment that use of the exhortation: "Think of the children" is a type of appeal to emotion was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal, ''Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy''.<ref name="borschke2011" /> Borschke went on to call this methodology a tactic of ].<ref name="borschke2011">Borschke 2011, p. 17.</ref>

			] of, and ] for ] material, is often implemented as "done for the children".
	] wrote that use of the phrase "Won’t someone think of the children?!" was done with the intent of ] additional discussion on the merits of the underlying issues and stopping ].<ref name="doctorow2011" />]]
	] Jack Marshall described "Think of the children!" as a tactic used in an attempt to cease back-and-forth discussion by invoking a powerful argument.<ref name="jackmarshall">Marshall 2005</ref> According to Marshall, the strategy proved useful due to its success at stopping individuals from engaging in ] and ].<ref name="jackmarshall" /> He called this plan an ] manner of obfuscating debate by ] ] towards another source which may not have been the focus of the original argument.<ref name="jackmarshall" /> He wrote that usage of the phrase had positive intent but had a tendency to become ] when used repeatedly by both sides in a dispute.<ref name="jackmarshall" /> Marshall concluded that referring to the phrase had the impact of manipulating a simple act of following regulations into a confusing ethical quandary.<Ref name="jackmarshall" /> He cautioned that society should not fall into the mindset that citing "Think of the children!" had the ability to upstage all other ]s and standards in civilization.<ref name="jackmarshall" />

			* China: One of the largest attempts was the ], by the ], which failed to mandate Internet content-control for all children in the country. This resulted in the forced pre-installation of "Green Dam Youth Escort" software on computers destined for China (software which was largely pirated from a program called CyberSitter). Unintentional consequences included that computers with this program were subject to a remote ] security vulnerability.<ref name="UMICH">{{cite web \|last=Wolchok \|first=Scott \|author2=Yao, Randy \|author3=Halderman, J. Alex \|title=Analysis of the Green Dam Censorware System \|publisher=] \|date=11 June 2009 \|url=http://www.cse.umich.edu/~jhalderm/pub/gd/ \|accessdate=21 June 2009}}</ref>
	Scott Beattie wrote in his 2009 book ''Community, Space and Online Censorship'' that the exclamation: "Will no one think of the children?" was often invoked by individuals advocating ] due to concerns for youths who might view material deemed inappropriate.<ref name="beattie2009">Beattie 2009, pp. 165–167.</ref> He opined that youngsters were cast as potential casualties of mythological sexual predators online, and were referred to in this fashion in order to increase regulation of the ].<ref name="beattie2009" /> Beattie explained that characterizing children in an ] manner drew upon a concept of innocence which served as a form of ] of the very notion of purity.<ref name="beattie2009" />
			* UK: ] and his government have warned that certain types of pornography will be criminalized (such as pornography with rape-like elements, even if acted), and a country-wide block of all pornography. This proxy-circumventable block would prevent any site with allegedly pornographic content being accessed by internet users, unless the subscriber requested to be unblocked from the ISP. The reason given was that online pornography was "corroding childhood".<ref>{{cite web\|last=BBC\|title=Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces\|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076\|accessdate=22 July 2013}}</ref>
			* Australia: Former Communications Minister ] billed his Internet censorship scheme as being for the purpose of protecting the children,<ref>{{cite web \| url=http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/062 \| title=Helping keep Australian children safe online \| author=Stephen Conroy \| publisher=Department of Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy \| accessdate=2010-03-31}}</ref> despite concerns from organizations such as ] which specialize in children's rights.<ref>{{cite web\|last=GetUp, Ltd.\|title=Joint Statement on Internet Censorship\|url=http://www.savethechildren.org.au/component/content/article/78-media-listing-blog/190-joint-statement-on-internet-censorship.html\|accessdate=22 July 2013}}</ref> ] banner.]]
			* Self-described "]" ], ] and ] have alleged in 2010-2011 that censorship of child pornography is being used as a pretext by copyright lobby organizations to get politicians to implement similar site blocking legislation against copyright-related piracy.<ref>{{cite web
			\|url = https://torrentfreak.com/the-copyright-lobby-absolutely-loves-child-pornography-110709/
			\|title = The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography
			\|author = ]
			\|date = 9 July 2011
			\|work = ]
			\|publisher =
			\|accessdate = 26 July 2012
			}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
			\|url = https://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/
			\|title = IFPI’s child porn strategy
			\|author = ]
			\|date = 27 April 2010
			\|accessdate = 26 July 2012
			}}</ref>
			* US: ] (2011) blocked high-level domain names where only a subnetwork was allegedly responsible for the distribution of child pornography. This resulted in a large network being blocked and having a child pornography accusation on their homepage for days.
			* The ] was implemented with "]" (2012), which included corrections to a recent content rating law, and introduced blocking of sites (including their ]es)<!-- The author claimed in an interview that IP address was the perfectly precise address, not less than URL. http://slon.ru/russia/elena_mizulina_vikipediya_prikrytie_pedofilskogo_lobbi-809860.xhtml --> containing information the bill said to be harmful for children, and any information prohibited from distribution by a court. Since then, there was a lot of discussion of Internet censorship, with many proposals of expansion, correction or reversion.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://rublacklist.net/7344/\|title=Радар законотворчества: невесеннее предчувствие\|work=RosComSvoboda\|language=ru\|date=7 Mar 2014\|accessdate=16 Mar 2014}}</ref> In 2013, the Duma passed ].

			===As justification for action===
	''Journal for Cultural Research'' published an article in 2010 by Debra Ferreday,<ref name="ferreday2010">Ferreday 2010, pp. 409–429.</ref> which was subsequently republished in the 2011 book ''Hope and Feminist Theory''.<ref name="coleman2011">Coleman 2011, p. 99.</ref> Ferreday wrote that use of the phrase "Won't someone think of the children!" in the media had become a common usage which evolved from a climate of ].<ref name="coleman2011" /> She posited that the phrase was becoming so commonplace as to have the likely prospect of turning into an oft-cited idiom similar to ].<ref name="coleman2011" />
			* By 1977 there existed a ] ordinance which outlawed discrimination in employment, housing, and public services on the basis of ]. ] led a campaign called ] By claiming that gays and lesbians threaten children's safety, Bryant created a movement which convinced 70% of the voters to repeal the ordinance, removing those civil rights protections. In 1981, ] echoed these claims in a fundraising letter that reminded his followers, "Please remember, homosexuals don't reproduce! They recruit! And they are out after my children and your children."<ref>{{cite web\|title=Anti-Gay Organizing on the Right\|url=http://www.pbs.org/outofthepast/past/p5/1977.html\|accessdate=22 July 2013}}</ref>

			==Usage to circumvent logical debate==
	] wrote in a 2011 article for '']'' magazine that the phrase "Won’t someone think of the children?!" was used by irrational individuals to support arguments about the dangers to youth of four types of groups on the Internet.<ref name="doctorow2011">Doctorow 2011, p. 31.</ref> These four groups included: ]s, ]s, ], and ].<ref name="doctorow2011" /> He wrote that use of the phrase in such a manner was done with the intent of ] additional discussion on the merits of the underlying issues and stopping ].<ref name="doctorow2011" /> Doctorow observed that these tactics were often used during the burgeoning period when society was determining the proper approach to ].<ref name="doctorow2011" />
			Claiming to do something for the benefit of children is not a ] of itself, but if used to avoid logical debate, it is a ]{{Citation needed\|reason=Examples needed\|date=August 2014}}. Ethicist ] described "think of the children!" as follows.

			{{centered pull quote\|'Think of the children!' is a tried-and-true debate-stopper, but more often than not one that succeeds because of its ability to inhibit rational thought. Children routinely have to suffer the consequences of adult incompetence, recklessness, stupidity, dishonesty and irresponsibility, and if preventing that biologically-dictated result is humanity's priority, then society needs to abolish the enforcement of laws, the obligation to support one's own family, and common sense... nless society sticks to principles that require adults to be responsible regarding the welfare of children in their charge, the 'Think of the children!' reflex will suffocate order and justice.\|author=Jack Marshall\|source='Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy<ref name=Marshall>{{cite web \|url=http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/children.html \|title='Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy \|author=Jack Marshall \|date=February 16, 2005 \|work=Ethics Scoreboard \|accessdate=February 12, 2014}}</ref>}}
	In his 2013 book ''Fervid Filmmaking'', Mike Watt discussed the history of ] related to the ] in the ] and noted how films that were banned during this time period became known in common parlance as "]".<ref name="watt2013" /> Watt commented that a more current linguistic interpretation of such attempts at censorship could be referred to as the: "Think of the Children" characterization.<ref name="watt2013">Watt 2013, p. 233.</ref> Brian M. Reed wrote in his book ''Nobody's Business'' published in the same year, that the phrase was essentially devoid of substance and could be replaced with: "How many kittens must die", and have an equally comedic effect.<ref name="reed2013">Reed 2013, p. 110.</ref>

	==Popularized in media==
	"Think of the children" was popularized in the media in large part due to its frequent use by character ], wife of ], on the television program '']''.<ref name="tenbrink2012">Ten Brink 2012, p. 789.</ref><ref name="shotwell2012">Shotwell 2012, p. 141.</ref><ref name="keenanin2">Keenan (April 26, 2014), p. IN2.</ref> Lovejoy's character repeatedly exclaimed: "Won't somebody please think of the children!" during over ten years of episodes on ''The Simpsons''.<ref name="keenanin2" /><ref name="sagers2009">Sagers 2009</ref><Ref name="televisionweek2008">TelevisionWeek 2008, p. 4.</ref> The character first appeared on the program in 1990.<ref name="groening1997">Groening 1997, p. 25.</ref><Ref name="martyn2000">Martyn 2000</ref> Lovejoy first used the phrase in the episode: "]", which aired in 1996.<ref name="cohen1996">Cohen 1996</ref> She used variants of the phrase including: "For heaven's sake, would someone please think of the children?!",<Ref name="patrick2000">Patrick 2000, p. B5.</ref> and "What about the children?".<ref name="tenbrink2012" /><ref name="mclennan2009">McLennan 2009, p. A15.</ref> She most often shrieked the phrase when members of the ] of ] were in the midst of debating a contentious problem or an argument about ].<ref name="patrick2000" /><ref name="kitrosser2011">Kitrosser 2011, p. 2395.</ref> She utilized the phrase when she had not succeeded using logical debate.<Ref name="hunt2014">Hunt 2014, p. 27.</ref> The depiction of the character's usage of the phrase on ''The Simpsons'' was done in a manner with comedic effect,<ref name="patrick2000" /> which ] its actual use in public discourse.<ref name="keenanin2" />

	After its popularization on ''The Simpsons'', the phrase's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.<ref name="keenangt4">Keenan (October 1, 2014), p. GT4.</ref> In his 2006 book ''The Myth of Evil'', author Phillip A. Cole observed that Helen Lovejoy's rejoinder assumed all children were pure, unadulterated potential casualties that required constant defense from danger.<ref name="cole2006">Cole 2006, p. 122.</ref> Cole contrasted this notion with ''The Simpsons'' character ] who eschews conforming and regulations in favor of creating disorder.<ref name="cole2006" /> He cited this as an example of the duality of perceptions of children by society: as both guiltless potential prey, and malevolent entities to be distrusted.<ref name="cole2006" /> Cole commented that the child was perceived throughout time as simultaneously representing the savage history of humanity and an optimistic future.<ref name="cole2006" />

	In an article published in the '']'', ] professor Charles J. Ten Brink wrote that Helen Lovejoy's signature phrase was a most adept and effective form of ].<ref name="tenbrink2012" /> '']'' criticized use of the phrase to support ] of the ] by the ] of the ] in 2009, commenting that it was evocative of Helen Lovejoy.<ref name="mclennan2009" /> Writing for '']'', journalist Edward Keenan referred to use of the phrase as: "Lovejoy's Law".<ref name="keenanin2" /> Keenan defined "Lovejoy's Law" as a warning that when an individual in a debate uses the phrase, it is likely a diversion from a weak logical stance.<ref name="keenanin2" /> He advised that true empathy toward children involved rational argumentation rather than usage of the phrase as a form of manipulation of the debate.<ref name="keenanin2" /> In an article for ]'s '']'', Carol Hunt referred to the tactic of usage of the phrase during political debate as the "Helen Lovejoy defence", and noted it had also been called the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome".<ref name="hunt2014" /> She wrote that it was often invoked in reference to ] children and not children actually impacted by a problem.<ref name="hunt2014" />

	==See also==		==See also==
	{{Portal\|Language\|Linguistics\|Logic\|Philosophy}}
	{{columns-list\|2\|
	*]		*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
			*]
	*]
			*] ("but there are children starving in Africa")
	*]
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
	*]
	*]
	*]		*]
	}}

	==Notes==
	{{Reflist\|2}}

	== References ==		== References ==
	{{~~Refbegin\|2~~}}		{{Reflist}}
	*{{cite book\|pages=165–167\|title=Community, Space and Online Censorship\|first=Scott \|last=Beattie\|year=2009\|publisher=Ashgate\|isbn=978-0-7546-7308-8}}
	*{{cite journal\|title=Rethinking the rhetoric of remix\|first=Margie\|last= Borschke\|journal=Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy\|volume=141\|date=November 2011\|page=17\|via=]\|publisher=University of Queensland, School of Journalism and Communication}}
	*{{cite book\|title=The Myth of Evil: Demonizing the Enemy\|year=2006\|first=Phillip A.\|last=Cole\|page=122\|chapter=Bad Seeds\|publisher=]\|isbn=978-0275992163}}
	*{{cite AV media\|first=David X. \|last=Cohen \| authorlink =David X. Cohen \| year =1996 \| title =] \| medium =Television episode \| work =] \| language =English\|publication-date=May 5, 1996 \| quote =Think of the children! \| publisher =] \| id =Production code: 3F20; Episode no. 151; ]: Episode 23. \| time =}}
	*{{cite book\|editor1-last=Coleman\|editor1-first=Rebecca\|editor2-last=Ferreday\|editor2-first=Debra\|title=Hope and Feminist Theory\|page=99\|publisher=]\|isbn=978-0-415-61852-6\|chapter=Reading Disorders: Online Suicide and the Death of Hope\|year=2011}}
	*{{cite journal\|first=Cory\|last=Doctorow\|authorlink=Cory Doctorow\|journal=]\|issn=1556-2336\|location=]\|publisher=Maker Media\|title=Four Horsemen of the 3D Printing Apocalypse\|date=July 1, 2011\|page=31\|volume=27\|url=http://archive.makezine.com/27/doctorow/\|accessdate=November 3, 2014\|archivedate=October 31, 2013\|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131031001804/http://archive.makezine.com/27/doctorow/}}
	*{{cite journal\|first=Debra\|last=Ferreday\|title=Reading Disorders: Online Suicide and the Death of Hope\|doi=10.1080/14797581003765366\|pages=409–426\|journal=Journal for Cultural Research\|volume=14\|issue=4\|year=2010}}
	*{{cite book \|last=Groening \|first=Matt \|authorlink=Matt Groening \|editor1-first=Ray \|editor1-last=Richmond \|editor1-link=Ray Richmond \|editor2-first=Antonia \|editor2-last=Coffman \|title=]\|edition=1st \|year=1997 \|location=New York \|publisher=] \|lccn=98141857\|page=25\| \|ol=433519M \|oclc=37796735 \|isbn=0060952520 }}
	*{{cite news\|first=Carol\|last=Hunt\|work=]\|date=January 5, 2014\|page=27\|title=Don't use our children as shields to protect status quo; The Helen Lovejoy argument against gay adoption is simply discrimination in a 'caring' guise, writes Carol Hunt\|via=]\|publisher=Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited}}
	*{{cite news\|title='Won't somebody please think of the children!'; The Simpsons has taught us not to trust anyone who stoops to use the corruptibility of children to advance a political argument\|work=]\|date=April 26, 2014\|first=Edward\|last=Keenan\|page=IN2\|via=]}}
	*{{cite news\|work=]\|date=October 1, 2014\|title=Thinking of the children is no laughing matter\|first=Edward\|last= Keenan\|page= GT4\|via=]}}
	*{{cite journal\|journal=]\|last=Kitrosser\|first=Heidi\|volume=79\|page=2395\|date=May 2011\|title=Symposium: Presidential Influence Over Administrative Action: Scientific Integrity: The Perils and Promise of White House Administration\|via=]\|publisher=]}}
	*{{cite news\|url=http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/children.html \|title='Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy \|first=Jack\|last= Marshall \|date=February 16, 2005 \|work=Ethics Scoreboard \|accessdate=November 1, 2014\|publisher=ProEthics, Ltd.\|archivedate=February 22, 2014\|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222023732/http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/children.html\|location=]}}
	*{{cite news\|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/simpsons/episodeguide/season1/page9.shtml \|title=Jacques To Be Wild \|accessdate=May 6, 2007 \|author=Martyn, Warren; Wood, Adrian \|year=2000 \|publisher=BBC\|archivedate=January 2, 2009\|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090102230048/http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/simpsons/episodeguide/season1/page9.shtml\|work=BBC Homepage: Entertainment; The Simpsons}}
	*{{cite news\|last=McLennan\|first=David \|page=A15\|work=]\|location=]\|date=December 18, 2009\|via=]\|title=Grey areas taint web blacklist}}
	*{{cite book \| last = Meany \| first = John\|author2=Kate Shuster \| title = Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate\| publisher = International Debate Education Association\| year = 2002 \| location =New York \| page = 65 \| isbn = 978-0-9702130-7-5\|oclc=438996525}}
	*{{cite news\|first=Jeremy\|last=Patrick\|work=]\|location=]\|date=December 2, 2000\|title=Don't forget, GLBT people have children, too\|page=B5\|via=]}}
	*{{cite book\|first=Brian M.\|last=Reed\|page=110\|title=Nobody's Business: Twenty-First Century Avant-Garde Poetics\|year=2013\|isbn=978-0801451577\|publisher=]}}
	*{{cite news\|work=]\|location=]\|title=Pop 20: When sexual discomfort reaches our legislative branch\|first=Aaron\|last=Sagers\|date=May 12, 2009\|agency=McClatchy-Tribune News Service\|via=]}}
	*{{cite journal\|journal=The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice\|date=Winter 2012\|volume=15\|page=141\|title=Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?!\|via=]\|quote=The Simpsons character Helen Lovejoy popularized this phrase.\|publisher=]\|location=]\|first=Mikaela\|last=Shotwell}}
	*{{cite journal\|author=TelevisionWeek staff\|journal=]\|publisher=]\|date=February 18, 2008\|title=Blink\|page=4\|via=]}}
	*{{cite journal\|journal=]\|publisher=]\|first=Charles J.\|last=Ten Brink\|volume=28\|page=789\|title=Gayborhoods: Intersections of Land Use Regulation, Sexual Minorities, and the Creative Class\|date=Spring 2012\|via=]}}
	*{{cite book\|first=Mike\|last=Watt\|title=Fervid Filmmaking\|year=2013\|publisher=McFarland \|page=233\|isbn=978-0786470662}}
	{{Refend}}

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==
Line 103:		Line 68:
	{{wiktionary\|think of the children}}		{{wiktionary\|think of the children}}
	{{Commons category\|Think of the children}}		{{Commons category\|Think of the children}}
			*{{cite web \|url=http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/children.html \|title='Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy \|author=Jack Marshall \|date=February 16, 2005 \|work=Ethics Scoreboard \|accessdate=February 12, 2014}}
	{{wikiquote\|Think of the children}}
	*{{cite news\|url=http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/children.html \|title='Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy \|first=Jack\|last= Marshall \|date=February 16, 2005 \|work=Ethics Scoreboard \|accessdate=November 1, 2014\|publisher=ProEthics, Ltd.\|archivedate=February 22, 2014\|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222023732/http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/children.html\|location=]}}

	{{Relevance fallacies}}		{{Relevance fallacies}}

			]
			]
			]
	]		]
	]
	]		]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

Revision as of 03:44, 3 November 2014

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Think of the children" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Think of the children (and similar phrases citing the interests of children including what about the children) can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done. When used as a plea for pity, this appeal to emotion can constitute a potential logical fallacy, while when used as an appeal for sympathy for weaker members of society, or the social good of the long-term health and viability of a society, it can constitute an argument for social justice generally accepted as appropriate.

It can be seen as:

An argument for the protection of children from the exigencies of capitalism or of the adult world in general, such as child labor, military use of children, or other forms of child abuse.
An argument for children's rights such as access to education and the right to thrive.
a political tool
a rhetorical phrase (e.g. "but think of the children")
an appeal to emotion
a rationalization or justification
a thought-terminating cliché

Occurrence

As justification for censorship

As justification for action

By 1977 there existed a Dade County, Florida ordinance which outlawed discrimination in employment, housing, and public services on the basis of sexual orientation. Anita Bryant led a campaign called Save Our Children. By claiming that gays and lesbians threaten children's safety, Bryant created a movement which convinced 70% of the voters to repeal the ordinance, removing those civil rights protections. In 1981, Jerry Falwell echoed these claims in a fundraising letter that reminded his followers, "Please remember, homosexuals don't reproduce! They recruit! And they are out after my children and your children."

Usage to circumvent logical debate

Claiming to do something for the benefit of children is not a fallacy of itself, but if used to avoid logical debate, it is a thought-terminating cliché. Ethicist Jack Marshall described "think of the children!" as follows.

'Think of the children!' is a tried-and-true debate-stopper, but more often than not one that succeeds because of its ability to inhibit rational thought. Children routinely have to suffer the consequences of adult incompetence, recklessness, stupidity, dishonesty and irresponsibility, and if preventing that biologically-dictated result is humanity's priority, then society needs to abolish the enforcement of laws, the obligation to support one's own family, and common sense... nless society sticks to principles that require adults to be responsible regarding the welfare of children in their charge, the 'Think of the children!' reflex will suffocate order and justice.
— Jack Marshall, 'Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy

References

"Michelle Obama: "We Gotta Move Forward". thepage.time.com. April 30, 2008.
Meany, John; Kate Shuster (2002). Art, argument, and advocacy: mastering parliamentary debate. IDEA. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-9702130-7-5.
Wolchok, Scott; Yao, Randy; Halderman, J. Alex (11 June 2009). "Analysis of the Green Dam Censorware System". University of Michigan. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
BBC. "Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces". Retrieved 22 July 2013.
Stephen Conroy. "Helping keep Australian children safe online". Department of Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy. Retrieved 2010-03-31.
GetUp, Ltd. "Joint Statement on Internet Censorship". Retrieved 22 July 2013.
Rick Falkvinge (9 July 2011). "The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography". TorrentFreak. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
Christian Engström (27 April 2010). "IFPI's child porn strategy". Retrieved 26 July 2012.
"Радар законотворчества: невесеннее предчувствие". RosComSvoboda (in Russian). 7 Mar 2014. Retrieved 16 Mar 2014.
"Anti-Gay Organizing on the Right". Retrieved 22 July 2013.
Jack Marshall (February 16, 2005). "'Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy". Ethics Scoreboard. Retrieved February 12, 2014.

External links

Jack Marshall (February 16, 2005). "'Think of the Children!': An Ethics Fallacy". Ethics Scoreboard. Retrieved February 12, 2014.

Common fallacies (list)

Formal

In propositional logic	Affirming a disjunct Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent Argument from fallacy Masked man Mathematical fallacy
In quantificational logic	Existential Illicit conversion Proof by example Quantifier shift
Syllogistic fallacy	Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise Negative conclusion from affirmative premises Exclusive premises Existential Necessity Four terms Illicit major Illicit minor Undistributed middle

Informal

Equivocation

Question-begging

Correlative-based

Illicit transference

Secundum quid

Faulty generalization

Ambiguity

Questionable cause

Animistic
- Furtive
Correlation implies causation
- Cum hoc
- Post hoc
Gambler's
- Inverse
Regression
Single cause
Slippery slope
Texas sharpshooter

Appeals

Consequences	Argumentum ad baculum Wishful thinking
Emotion	Children Fear Flattery Novelty Pity Ridicule In-group favoritism Invented here / Not invented here Island mentality Loyalty Parade of horribles Spite Stirring symbols Wisdom of repugnance

Genetic fallacy

Ad hominem	Appeal to motive Association Reductio ad Hitlerum Godwin's law Reductio ad Stalinum Bulverism Poisoning the well Tone Tu quoque Whataboutism
Authority Accomplishment Ipse dixit Poverty / Wealth Etymology Nature Tradition / Novelty Chronological snobbery

Other fallacies
of relevance

Arguments	Ad nauseam Sealioning Argument from anecdote Argument from silence Argument to moderation Argumentum ad populum
Cliché The Four Great Errors I'm entitled to my opinion Ignoratio elenchi Invincible ignorance Moralistic / Naturalistic Motte-and-bailey fallacy Psychologist's fallacy Rationalization Red herring Two wrongs make a right Special pleading Straw man

Category

Categories: