3 ms·

Yet another law "to protect children". As soon as I see that justification, I know there is a 99% chance that the law will actually be advancing government powe

Yet another law "to protect children". As soon as I see that justification, I know there is a 99% chance that the law will actually be advancing government power, control and/or surveillance over the general populace. Why is this? Because lawmakers know that no one likes Big Brother laws, but most everyone's common sense goes out the window as soon as the "but think of the children" argument is brought out as a cover for bad law.

stephengillie 14y ago
...most everyone's common sense goes out the window as soon as the "but think of the children" argument is brought out as a cover for bad law. Does a good persuasive counter-position exist to the "think of the children" argument? Is there a way of telling a parent "This person is using your concern for your child against you, making you afraid so you won't think logically about what's being done" -- without sounding like a heartless jerk?
- thwarted 14y ago
  A counter-argument requires an argument, and "think of the children" is an appeal to emotion not an argument. As a parent, I agree with the GP that when "think of the children" is trotted out, it indicates ulterior motives.
- ken 14y ago
  Do any children's advocacy groups support the bill? Looking past the title, what exactly does the text of the bill say? Explain it to me. (Hint: you can be guilty of this even if no minors are involved.) Wouldn't our children be better served by a more clearly written bill? Doesn't RCW 9.68A.101 already make this crime a class A felony? What situations, exactly, are covered by this bill but not existing law?
- ToastOpt 14y ago
  I suspect it depends on the rationality of the parent you're speaking to. As a parent, that wording sounds fine to me.
  - jmj42 14y ago
    I, too, am a parent (of two teen-age daughters). I agree with the parent. "Think of the children" is almost always an appeal to an emotional response to gain support for laws that are generally an attack on adult behavior. These laws are usually worded to be vague and carry an intention (though often not overtly stated) to apply to _all_ "taboo" behavior. As mentioned elsewhere, we already have laws and punishment for sexual exploitation of children (and adults, for that matter). There's not need for special laws because the state isn't fond of a specific entity.

stephengillie 14y ago

...most everyone's common sense goes out the window as soon as the "but think of the children" argument is brought out as a cover for bad law. Does a good persuasive counter-position exist to the "think of the children" argument? Is there a way of telling a parent "This person is using your concern for your child against you, making you afraid so you won't think logically about what's being done" -- without sounding like a heartless jerk?

thwarted 14y ago
A counter-argument requires an argument, and "think of the children" is an appeal to emotion not an argument. As a parent, I agree with the GP that when "think of the children" is trotted out, it indicates ulterior motives.
ken 14y ago
Do any children's advocacy groups support the bill? Looking past the title, what exactly does the text of the bill say? Explain it to me. (Hint: you can be guilty of this even if no minors are involved.) Wouldn't our children be better served by a more clearly written bill? Doesn't RCW 9.68A.101 already make this crime a class A felony? What situations, exactly, are covered by this bill but not existing law?
ToastOpt 14y ago
I suspect it depends on the rationality of the parent you're speaking to. As a parent, that wording sounds fine to me.
- jmj42 14y ago
  I, too, am a parent (of two teen-age daughters). I agree with the parent. "Think of the children" is almost always an appeal to an emotional response to gain support for laws that are generally an attack on adult behavior. These laws are usually worded to be vague and carry an intention (though often not overtly stated) to apply to _all_ "taboo" behavior. As mentioned elsewhere, we already have laws and punishment for sexual exploitation of children (and adults, for that matter). There's not need for special laws because the state isn't fond of a specific entity.