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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Complain to the families of the Pulse and Sandy Hook victims about your right to due process [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)90. Your 'conclusions' are merely an old political tactic currently known as Lovejoying:
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?" 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]
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Complain to the families of the Pulse and Sandy Hook victims about your right to due process [View all]
lindysalsagal
Jun 2016
OP
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
There may indeed be folks on DU claiming that "everyone and anyone who wants to bear arms be allowed
TeddyR
Jun 2016
#65
As I understand it, the Feinstein bill called for anyone on the No-Fly list any time within the
calimary
Jun 2016
#54
Yes. You're correct. He wasn't on the no-fly list at the time of the massacre.
calimary
Jun 2016
#139
Well, we (DU) already support the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on the POTUS' say-so,
TransitJohn
Jun 2016
#122
Complete silliness to apply so much credence to such a relatively small amount of money
pipoman
Jun 2016
#23
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
Due Process is very over-rated, especially for suspicios people. CHicago PD has a great list,
jmg257
Jun 2016
#22
Proof? FBI doesn't need any proof, or even evidence. Reasonable suspicion is plenty.
jmg257
Jun 2016
#26
No, your claim is bullshit. This was posted years *after* you joined:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#36
Fuck that police-state cheerleading. Here's how DU *used* to feel about attitudes like that:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#34
Not ALL civil rights: just assault semi-automatics. So, yes . You have no right to deprive people of
lindysalsagal
Jun 2016
#44
Representatives. And americans overwhelmingly want semi-automatics banned.
lindysalsagal
Jun 2016
#47
"...another gun lover on ignore" because he/she put-paid to your argument? Understandable.
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#159
Your 'conclusions' are merely an old political tactic currently known as Lovejoying:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#90
A lot of children were (and still are) harmed by their families' alcohol use
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#132
You keep making statements about how you "know" what your opponents really care about
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#133
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
Correction: No mass murders in the U.S. have occurred using "automatic assault rifles" (redundant).
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#160
Maybe we do care and we want to see something done. Something that works to save lives.
Kang Colby
Jun 2016
#144
Due process is not so important that you should expect others to be willing to die for it
anigbrowl
Jun 2016
#128
Neither of those murders were on the no fly list, were they? I don't understand the point here.
uppityperson
Jun 2016
#129
Which, if the polls were correct, includes far more people than will admit it now (nt)
LongtimeAZDem
Jun 2016
#151
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