Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
90. Your 'conclusions' are merely an old political tactic currently known as Lovejoying:
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:35 AM
Jun 2016


It is also known as "Think of the children":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?&quot is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]

Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]

It was an exhortation in the 1964 Walt Disney Pictures film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!".[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]

In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".[19]


It has been employed by moral panic-mongers for decades, notably to promote
alcohol prohibition:










Why anyone would think a Prohibition 3.0 against guns would work when the one against
alcohol backfired spectacularly and the one against cannabis died of senility eludes me.

Why the same people are willing to grant such powers to the government
when there's a good chance of a right-wing government coming into power
in the future also eludes me.


We're a largely anti-gun website, so I'm not sure who you're addressing. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2016 #1
There are plenty here who are pro-gun and who are apologists for private citizens owning Squinch Jun 2016 #2
Thank you. n/t. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #30
. Squinch Jun 2016 #35
making lists of people for whom rights will be denied is a very bad idea tk2kewl Jun 2016 #131
Complain to the families of 9/11 about your due process BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #3
With No-Fly extending to No-Buy, indeed it has "not stopped." Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #154
Indeed RobertEarl Jun 2016 #4
Link please sarisataka Jun 2016 #6
Link XRubicon Jun 2016 #40
Any link sarisataka Jun 2016 #50
Wait a minute .... Straw Man Jun 2016 #100
There may indeed be folks on DU claiming that "everyone and anyone who wants to bear arms be allowed TeddyR Jun 2016 #65
then we need lancer78 Jun 2016 #93
Yeah, fuck due process! linuxman Jun 2016 #5
Fuck the NRA! RobertEarl Jun 2016 #8
The NRA wrote the fifth ammendment?! COOL! linuxman Jun 2016 #11
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #113
The NRA didnt write the Bill of Rights davidn3600 Jun 2016 #16
As I understand it, the Feinstein bill called for anyone on the No-Fly list any time within the calimary Jun 2016 #54
I thought Mateen was on some other super-secret government list TeddyR Jun 2016 #66
I wonder what percentage of people on the list are Muslim? jmg257 Jun 2016 #84
He wasn't on the no-fly list n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #138
Yes. You're correct. He wasn't on the no-fly list at the time of the massacre. calimary Jun 2016 #139
No, he had not SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #140
Okay, then...how about being part of the solution? lapislzi Jun 2016 #120
A locked gun safe would have stopped Adam Lanza. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #161
Well, we (DU) already support the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on the POTUS' say-so, TransitJohn Jun 2016 #122
It is completely undemocratic to advocate for unconstitutional pipoman Jun 2016 #7
You don't know the 2nd, or laws RobertEarl Jun 2016 #9
Why are you arguing from the losing side then? pipoman Jun 2016 #12
Fuck the NRA RobertEarl Jun 2016 #21
Complete silliness to apply so much credence to such a relatively small amount of money pipoman Jun 2016 #23
None of the laws currently being proposed would have prevented Mateen TeddyR Jun 2016 #67
Good post Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #74
On what planet? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #89
Have you studied law? Where did you receive your degree? Marengo Jun 2016 #43
Probably from the 'Close cover before striking' School of Law. nt COLGATE4 Jun 2016 #153
What is wrong sarisataka Jun 2016 #10
Doesn't apply to people we don't like REP Jun 2016 #13
Those who give up freedom for security will lose both davidn3600 Jun 2016 #14
"Stop misquoting me on the internet." -- Ben Franklin Orrex Jun 2016 #114
I guess that depends on what you consider a "minor restriction" Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #145
Yeah, gun advocates are fond of hyperbolic slipery-slope thinking Orrex Jun 2016 #146
Well, we "slipped" from No-Fly to No-Buy with fluid-drive ease. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #155
Remember this for-sure 100% guaranteed terrorist? REP Jun 2016 #15
First shadowrider Jun 2016 #17
First RobertEarl Jun 2016 #19
Fluff. beevul Jun 2016 #149
I NEED not to be singled out as someone who doesn't have the same rights everyone else does. Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #18
Who says no trials? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #20
The Watch List says. Straw Man Jun 2016 #101
Due Process is very over-rated, especially for suspicios people. CHicago PD has a great list, jmg257 Jun 2016 #22
If they have proof, then they can get warrants to arrest them REP Jun 2016 #24
Proof? FBI doesn't need any proof, or even evidence. Reasonable suspicion is plenty. jmg257 Jun 2016 #26
Gotcha REP Jun 2016 #28
Nah - Fuck your Police State. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #25
Ok Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #27
^^THIS^^ +1000! nt jonno99 Jun 2016 #56
So losing your assault weapons is equivalent to being locked up in Gitmo? Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #68
what is good lancer78 Jun 2016 #94
Due process only applies to issues I care about Democat Jun 2016 #104
This due process shit didn't come up about the no fly list The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #29
It came up many times and has been opposed by many. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #31
Here's the best post I could find: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #33
There has to be thousands of threads on DU2. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #38
No, your claim is bullshit. This was posted years *after* you joined: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #36
I don't care what was posted here I'm talking about The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #37
That doesn't make it any better, or less odious friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #39
Maybe you just didn't notice Scootaloo Jun 2016 #41
Wrong. Straw Man Jun 2016 #102
Mass-shooting victims deserve due process, too. But they're dead. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #32
Fuck that police-state cheerleading. Here's how DU *used* to feel about attitudes like that: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #34
History. It's what's for dinner. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #157
So their feelings trump constitutional protections of civil rights? hack89 Jun 2016 #42
Not ALL civil rights: just assault semi-automatics. So, yes . You have no right to deprive people of lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #44
So who gets to choose what civil rights don't deserve due process? hack89 Jun 2016 #45
Representatives. And americans overwhelmingly want semi-automatics banned. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #47
No they don't hack89 Jun 2016 #52
Yes they do geomon666 Jun 2016 #55
54% support is not overwhelming. hack89 Jun 2016 #60
Don't bother. Ignore. Goodbye. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #61
Way to have a civil discussion Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #82
Wow... TipTok Jun 2016 #87
No, I wouldn't say. geomon666 Jun 2016 #64
My bolt action rifle is more a weapon if war than my AR Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #83
The AR-15 is just a modified M16 geomon666 Jun 2016 #92
Semi-auto vs. full-auto Straw Man Jun 2016 #103
Yes, modified Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #107
Not according to the poll the poster gave me. nt hack89 Jun 2016 #108
You're on the losing side of this argument anigbrowl Jun 2016 #124
I have heard that particular song and dance for 20 years now hack89 Jun 2016 #130
From your link ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #78
It is what it is. geomon666 Jun 2016 #91
Yes, it is. Straw Man Jun 2016 #96
Who gives a fuck about a mandate? geomon666 Jun 2016 #97
The person you were defending when you entered this thread. Straw Man Jun 2016 #98
Fuck that. Say it with me.. CON-STI-TU-SHUN. 5th, and 14th. X_Digger Jun 2016 #57
So a couple of thoughts TeddyR Jun 2016 #71
Umm ... no, they don't. Straw Man Jun 2016 #76
Oh, no, no. Fundamental misunderstanding of a constitutional democracy! Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #158
That's how it starts (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #46
"It" being your paranoia. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #48
Would you feel the same way? LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #62
Not having an assault weapon is the equivalent of being deported? Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #73
Once the precedent is set, it won't matter. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #106
I beg your paranoia? Skittles Jun 2016 #51
LOL, the NRA slippery slope excuse Skittles Jun 2016 #95
Actually ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #99
Not in my case; I apply it across the board LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #116
LOL Skittles Jun 2016 #142
It's simple, add due process to the bill. geomon666 Jun 2016 #49
The Cornyn bill had due process in it. Straw Man Jun 2016 #79
Wait, were either of them on the no-fly list? X_Digger Jun 2016 #53
No, they were not Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #59
Well let's look at some fact for a second Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #58
What the hell are you talking about? geomon666 Jun 2016 #63
Connecticut had an assault weapons ban in place Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #69
Not according to Connectcut law oneshooter Jun 2016 #72
I think the point being the xm-15 "assault weapon" was perfectly legal jmg257 Jun 2016 #75
Exactly. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #70
Your bickering over details doesn't bring those beautiful children back. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #77
So you think our legal system should ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #80
1 more time: Keep laws, eliminate semi automatic assault weapons. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #85
What laws? Straw Man Jun 2016 #86
"...another gun lover on ignore" because he/she put-paid to your argument? Understandable. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #159
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #125
Unfortunately in the real world, details matter Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #81
This bill is about gesture politics, not about saving lives. Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2016 #118
Every time people defend our current gun situation, SheilaT Jun 2016 #88
Your 'conclusions' are merely an old political tactic currently known as Lovejoying: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #90
Where you are completely wrong... anigbrowl Jun 2016 #127
A lot of children were (and still are) harmed by their families' alcohol use friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #132
Every time people defend due process Democat Jun 2016 #105
What exactly is the violation of due process? Orrex Jun 2016 #109
Using a secret government list to take away rights Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #110
So you'd be ok if there were an appeals process? Orrex Jun 2016 #111
Yes, I would be ok with an appeals process Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #112
That seems reasonable. (nt) Orrex Jun 2016 #115
All I can figure out is that SheilaT Jun 2016 #123
You keep making statements about how you "know" what your opponents really care about friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #133
If people were valued over guns, then many more people SheilaT Jun 2016 #135
I value *all* of the Constitution. In your own words, are there any other parts of it that... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #137
No reply? Ok then:Your stance is a moral-panic fuelled special pleading friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #148
^^^^^THIS^^^^^ lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #143
Correction: No mass murders in the U.S. have occurred using "automatic assault rifles" (redundant). Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #160
Goodbye. Ignore. The list gets longer. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #162
Extremist prohibitionism will not help solve anything. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #164
Maybe we do care and we want to see something done. Something that works to save lives. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #144
I know that most gun deaths in this country are suicides. SheilaT Jun 2016 #163
+1000 smirkymonkey Jun 2016 #156
Due process is not so important that you should expect others to be willing to die for it anigbrowl Jun 2016 #128
Agreed, and they are wiling to give their own lives treestar Jun 2016 #136
Where was little Dylan's right to due process? n/t leeroysphitz Jun 2016 #117
NRA: "Due process" only applies to gun holders, not gun victims. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #119
Really? Give a link to them saying that friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #134
ACLU on proposed gun legislation sarisataka Jun 2016 #121
Moot point SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #126
Neither of those murders were on the no fly list, were they? I don't understand the point here. uppityperson Jun 2016 #129
Complain to the supporters of the Patriot Act. L. Coyote Jun 2016 #141
Which, if the polls were correct, includes far more people than will admit it now (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #151
Why? They really nothing to do with protection of rights. TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #147
Banning assault weapons would not have anything to do with due process and they know it. Rex Jun 2016 #150
The "where were the rights of the victim?" argument has often been used to defend abuses of LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #152
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Complain to the families ...»Reply #90