3 ms·

Maybe we should take all kids away from their parents and let the state raise them. After all, that will certainly protect one kid from an abusive situation, so

Maybe we should take all kids away from their parents and let the state raise them. After all, that will certainly protect one kid from an abusive situation, so it is wonderful. <sarcasm, obviously /> I don't have a strong opinion on the advertisement, but I do have a strong opinion about the "do anything to protect one X" where X is used more for special interests than out of actual concern for X. Things should be thought of in terms of cost-benefit. Otherwise, you wind up with crap like the TSA, where far more people are dying from driving due to not flying because of horrible TSA policies than the TSA is saving from terrorist attacks. So, on the advertisement, it is a good thing to cause emotional distress to all the kids who aren't being abused and who have no idea that kind of thing exists? (And, fwiw, I take this topic very seriously. I have four kids myself and was abused growing up. It is not just an academic, somebody-else's-kids topic to me.) EDIT: Oh, and I completely agree with your second point. Child abuse is an amazingly serious topic. There are few things worse than the person whom you are supposed to trust most and who is supposed to care most for you violating that trust.

sukuriant 13y ago
> I don't have a strong opinion on the advertisement, but I do have a strong opinion about the "do anything to protect one X" where X is used more for special interests than out of actual concern for X. If I came off as encouraging that sort of argument, I am very sorry. That was not my intent even a little, and it's certainly not what I believe. > So, on the advertisement, it is a good thing to cause emotional distress to all the kids who aren't being abused and who have no idea that kind of thing exists? This is a rough thing to answer. I would ask if the kids really are experiencing emotional distress from seeing those pictures. They might, they might not; though, now that you've brought this method into question, I'm now torn on this whole issue, especially since that the conversation of "why is that boy hurt?" / "He doesn't look hurt to me, dear" conversation is a plausible one; and, to be honest, I don't have an answer yet. I do think that both the adult and children's version of the image talks about child abuse, so that might make the conversation easier. Again, if my previous post engendered the "do anything to protect the X" stance, I wholeheartedly apologize; and if possible, please let me know what I said that made you think I was taking that stance, since I don't want to be confused there. (emphasis on the anything part, because that's where the danger of doing too much/fixing the wrong thing/harming more than good/etc problems come in)
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  I think it was failing to explicitly acknowledge the potentially negative effects of the ad: by trying to protect children, it actually causes some harm (distress) to them. It was like you said that anything with positive effect should be done, regardless of the costs. Obviously you know better. But many people just get blinded by the halo effect and merrily shout "yay!" to anything that looks like it supports their cause.
- SoftwareMaven 13y ago
  To answer your question about what made me think you were taking that stance: "it's better than nothing; and if it can protect one kid from an abusive situation, or one set of kids from their abusive situations, then that is wonderful." The thing that made me think it was the lack of any qualification. It appeared to be (your follow-on comment repudiated that, obviously) a case where, if you protect one kid, regardless of the consequences, it is wonderful. Taking this discussion back to the kids, I think it should be possible to do things to help kids, even one kid, that don't have potential downsides, but it requires the people who are performing the actions to be more likely to do it for the kids and less likely to do it for themselves. Politicians seem to fail continually at this; the ad might be a positive (I have no data) but it leaves me uncomfortable that somebody is targeting my kids directly with something I can't see. Something tells me is isn't the last "message hidden from mom and dad" that will be directed at kids. But is it worse than "Remember to drink your Ovaltine"?

sukuriant 13y ago

> I don't have a strong opinion on the advertisement, but I do have a strong opinion about the "do anything to protect one X" where X is used more for special interests than out of actual concern for X. If I came off as encouraging that sort of argument, I am very sorry. That was not my intent even a little, and it's certainly not what I believe. > So, on the advertisement, it is a good thing to cause emotional distress to all the kids who aren't being abused and who have no idea that kind of thing exists? This is a rough thing to answer. I would ask if the kids really are experiencing emotional distress from seeing those pictures. They might, they might not; though, now that you've brought this method into question, I'm now torn on this whole issue, especially since that the conversation of "why is that boy hurt?" / "He doesn't look hurt to me, dear" conversation is a plausible one; and, to be honest, I don't have an answer yet. I do think that both the adult and children's version of the image talks about child abuse, so that might make the conversation easier. Again, if my previous post engendered the "do anything to protect the X" stance, I wholeheartedly apologize; and if possible, please let me know what I said that made you think I was taking that stance, since I don't want to be confused there. (emphasis on the anything part, because that's where the danger of doing too much/fixing the wrong thing/harming more than good/etc problems come in)

loup-vaillant 13y ago
I think it was failing to explicitly acknowledge the potentially negative effects of the ad: by trying to protect children, it actually causes some harm (distress) to them. It was like you said that anything with positive effect should be done, regardless of the costs. Obviously you know better. But many people just get blinded by the halo effect and merrily shout "yay!" to anything that looks like it supports their cause.
SoftwareMaven 13y ago
To answer your question about what made me think you were taking that stance: "it's better than nothing; and if it can protect one kid from an abusive situation, or one set of kids from their abusive situations, then that is wonderful." The thing that made me think it was the lack of any qualification. It appeared to be (your follow-on comment repudiated that, obviously) a case where, if you protect one kid, regardless of the consequences, it is wonderful. Taking this discussion back to the kids, I think it should be possible to do things to help kids, even one kid, that don't have potential downsides, but it requires the people who are performing the actions to be more likely to do it for the kids and less likely to do it for themselves. Politicians seem to fail continually at this; the ad might be a positive (I have no data) but it leaves me uncomfortable that somebody is targeting my kids directly with something I can't see. Something tells me is isn't the last "message hidden from mom and dad" that will be directed at kids. But is it worse than "Remember to drink your Ovaltine"?