Have they? I don’t see that. I see a lot of “adjusted” temperature readings. I see a lot of “forecasts” that are “modeled” to indicate temperature increases. I see a lot of people all over the world waiting at the trough. Whether for hunger, refugees, climate change, social justice… you name it. There are a lot of people who depend on these funds to pay their mortgages in London, New York and DC.
But now instead of “Think of the Children,” we have “Think of the Planet.” Clearly that is a much better “new and improved!!!” version, surely? Although I have to say, the Simpsons seemed to get the muddleheaded
emotionalism about right: youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg
[quote]Logical fallacy[edit]
In their 2002 book, Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, John Meany and Kate Shuster called the use of the phrase “Think of the children” in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion.[1] According to the authors, a debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion.[1] They provide an example: “I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won’t someone please think of the children?”[1] Their assessment was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, with Borschke calling its use a rhetorical tactic.[3]
Ethicist Jack Marshall described “Think of the children!” as a tactic used in an attempt to end discussion by invoking an unanswerable argument.[2] According to Marshall, the strategy succeeds in preventing rational debate.[2] He called its use an unethical manner of obfuscating debate, misdirecting empathy towards an object which may not have been the focus of the original argument.[2] Marshall wrote that although the phrase’s use may have a positive intention, it evokes irrationality when repeatedly used by both sides of a debate.[2] He concluded that the phrase can transform the observance of regulations into an ethical quandary, cautioning society to avoid using “Think of the children!” as a final argument.[2]
In his 2015 syndicated article “Think Of The Children”, Michael Reagan criticized the phrase’s use by politicians.[27] According to Reagan, politicians needed to stop using children as tools when arguing for favored governmental programs.[27] He called the tactic an illogical argument, an act of desperation by those who felt they had a weaker case with reason-based arguments.[27] Noting that it has been used by Democrats and Republicans alike in the United States,[27] Reagan called the tactic “obvious political BS”.[27]
Moral panic[edit]
File:2015 Think of the Children by Mia Love.ogv
The phrase, used by Congresswoman Mia Love
The Journal for Cultural Research published an article in 2010 by Debra Ferreday,[28] which was republished in the 2011 book Hope and Feminist Theory.[9] According to Ferreday, media use of “Won’t someone think of the children!” had become common in a climate of moral panic.[9] She suggested that the phrase was becoming so common that it could become another Godwin’s law.[9]
In a 2011 article for the journal Post Script, Andrew Scahill wrote about the power of children in rhetoric to create an untenable stance for an opposing viewpoint.[29] According to Scahill, an individual arguing “for the children” makes it extremely difficult for an opponent to hold a “not for the children” position.[29] Cassandra Wilkinson discussed the impact of “think of the children” rhetoric in a 2011 article for IPA Review.[30] Wilkinson cited research by No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk-Averse Society author Tim Gill that hypersensitivity in defending children from potential harm has the adverse effect of contributing to the inability of youth to own their choices and react to dangerous situations.[31] In the New Statesman, Laurie Penny characterized the tactic as a political belief system and called it “think-of-the-children-ism”.[19]
Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig wrote in a 2014 article for First Things that moralizing with the phrase was commonly seen in discussions of sexuality,[20] attributing this to society’s increasing perception of morality as a feminine domain.[20] Bruenig also cited the labeling of NBC’s refusal to broadcast a movie trailer about abortion as “think-of-the-children-ism”.[20]
Censorship[edit]
Scott Beattie wrote in his 2009 book, Community, Space and Online Censorship, that the question “Will no one think of the children?” was often raised by individuals advocating censorship out of a concern that youth might view material deemed inappropriate.[7] According to Beattie, youngsters were cast as potential casualties of online sexual predators to increase regulation of the Internet; characterizing children as infantile evoked a concept of innocence which was a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7]
For Make magazine, Cory Doctorow wrote in a 2011 article that “Won’t someone think of the children?!” was used by irrational individuals to support arguments about the dangers to youth of the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse”: “pirates”, terrorists, organized crime, and child pornographers.[32] According to Doctorow, the phrase was used to stifle discussion of underlying issues and halt rational analysis.[32] He observed its frequent use when society was determining an appropriate approach to the legal aspects of computing.[32]
In his 2013 book, Fervid Filmmaking, Mike Watt discussed the history of censorship relative to the United Kingdom’s Obscene Publications Act 1959 and noted that films banned during that period became known as “video nasties”.[33] Watt called a current interpretation of such censorship the “Think of the Children” characterization.[33] Brian M. Reed wrote in his book, Nobody’s Business (also published that year), that the phrase was devoid of substance and could be replaced for comic effect with “How many kittens must die?”[34]
For Reason in 2015, journalist Brendan O’Neill wrote that Marjorie Heins’ Not in Front of the Children: Indecency, Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth cited the centuries-long use by governments of the prevention of “harm to minors” as an excuse to increase censorship and control.[35] According to O’Neill, the use of “Won’t somebody please think of the children?” in contemporary culture had greatly increased and was a means of exerting moral authority with emotional blackmail.[35][/quote]
If you’re not concerned with the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, or rising ocean temperatures, receding glaciers, increases in species extinctions, changing weather patterns, etc etc… If you’re not concerned with those things, are you at the very least concerned with this?
then you should be against the measures proposed by global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) alarmists.