Children's interests (rhetoric)
 |
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (March 2013) |
Citing the interests of 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[1][better source needed]
- a rhetorical phrase (e.g. "but think of the children")[2]
- an appeal to emotion
- a rationalization or justification
Occurrence
As justification for censorship
Internet censorship of, and content-control software for offensive material, is often implemented as "done for the children". One of the largest attempts was the Green Dam Youth Escort, by the People's Republic of China, which failed to mandate Internet content-control for all children in the country.
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.[original research?] By the same token, accusing other parties of using "what about the children" as an illogical appeal to emotion is itself sometimes used to avoid logical debate.[original research?]
While it is possible to claim that something is being done "for the children" as support in a logical argument, or as a counterargument, such use is only valid when it does not lead to a logical black-hole. For example, it is reasonable to suggest and legislate to "add traffic lights next to schools so that children are safer from cars."[citation needed] This argument however neglects other factors that may be the cause, such as bad road design and/or construction.[original research?]
Examples
In legislation
- Anita Bryant's Save Our Children campaign in 1977 was successful in repealing a Dade County, Florida ordinance which outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. "By focusing on the idea that gays and lesbians were somehow threatening to children, Bryant had created an incredibly powerful rhetorical focus for social conservatives. In 1981, Jerry Falwell echoed her language 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."[3]
- Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has billed his Internet censorship scheme as being for the purpose of protecting the children,[4] despite concerns from organizations such as Save The Children.[5]
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.
- ^ http://www.pbs.org/outofthepast/past/p5/1977.html
- ^ Stephen Conroy. "Helping keep Australian children safe online". Department of Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy. Retrieved 2010-03-31.
- ^ http://www.savethechildren.org.au/component/content/article/78-media-listing-blog/190-joint-statement-on-internet-censorship.html
 |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Children's interests (rhetoric) |
