3 ms·

Why is it always “think of the children” used to abrogate the rights of adults?

scythmic_waves 6mo ago
I think it's because, without further context, it's so hard to argue against. Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children. So if you can successfully hitch your position to that idea, it too becomes hard to argue against. It's the same with tough on crime. "What, you want criminals to keep getting away with it?!"
- rafaelero 6mo ago
  > Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children. I would substitute "deeply" for "superficially". Like, if my parents found some way to prohibit porn when I was an adolescent, I wouldn't say they cared deeply about me. I would say they were misguided and authoritary. The "care deeply" idea you are putting forward is just trying to distil whatever societal norm currently is into the youngs.
LaGrange 6mo ago
Because adults remain children. As in, their parent’s kids and therefore property. [edit: I should mention also property of the state beyond that] It’s less explicit in US I guess but in some places that’s very blunt - if you don’t support your parents enough you can be sued for abuse. And there are situations where an adult in us has been declared too irresponsible and forced into conversion camps by parents in the US. It’s insane, yes, and if you’re lucky enough this might be entirely invisible to you. But if you’re gray or trans or autistic and get a but unlucky this can become a very harsh reality. Protect the children refers to a type of property, not a type of human.
subscribed 6mo ago
Because it's very easy for the creeps already thinking of your children to paint these rejecting this type of the laws as those who want to see children hurt. Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it. This is just a dirty trick of the creeps to make the resistance harder.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
cvoss 6mo ago
Because it is the moral responsibility of adults to care for not just their children but all our children. Occasional surrendering of rights is appropriate in that endeavor.

I think it's because, without further context, it's so hard to argue against. Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children. So if you can successfully hitch your position to that idea, it too becomes hard to argue against. It's the same with tough on crime. "What, you want criminals to keep getting away with it?!"

rafaelero 6mo ago
> Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children. I would substitute "deeply" for "superficially". Like, if my parents found some way to prohibit porn when I was an adolescent, I wouldn't say they cared deeply about me. I would say they were misguided and authoritary. The "care deeply" idea you are putting forward is just trying to distil whatever societal norm currently is into the youngs.

LaGrange 6mo ago

Because adults remain children. As in, their parent’s kids and therefore property. [edit: I should mention also property of the state beyond that] It’s less explicit in US I guess but in some places that’s very blunt - if you don’t support your parents enough you can be sued for abuse. And there are situations where an adult in us has been declared too irresponsible and forced into conversion camps by parents in the US. It’s insane, yes, and if you’re lucky enough this might be entirely invisible to you. But if you’re gray or trans or autistic and get a but unlucky this can become a very harsh reality. Protect the children refers to a type of property, not a type of human.

subscribed 6mo ago

Because it's very easy for the creeps already thinking of your children to paint these rejecting this type of the laws as those who want to see children hurt. Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it. This is just a dirty trick of the creeps to make the resistance harder.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

cvoss 6mo ago

Because it is the moral responsibility of adults to care for not just their children but all our children. Occasional surrendering of rights is appropriate in that endeavor.