What about the children?

But, but what about the children??
I have had this argument thrown at me so many times in life and so often on this site. This is a silly debate tactic used by poor debaters to make someone look like an extremist. I'm so sick of hearing this, and yet I do love children, Hitler loved children, everyone loves children. It is irrelevant, the current crop of children are irrelevant in a debate about the greater struggle for the future of a society. I will demonstrate just how this argument is used and why it is such a conversation ender, and also why it is such a poor and yet effective strategy.

Let's take Syria. Thousands of children have died and continue to die. It is criminal what's happening over there. How can America stand by and watch while children are killed every day? If America doesn't intervene in Syria they are child murderers, you are a child murderer. What about the children?, I ask you.

Let's talk about Syria. Look what happened in Iraq when America went in, look at all the children that were killed. How can America go into Syria knowing how many children will be killed? If you supported America in Iraq and if you now support American intervention in Syria, you are a child murderer. What about the children?, I ask you.

Let's talk about welfare in the USA. If you don't support continued and ever increasing social welfare benefits you are a monster. How can you stand by while children are going hungry? Do you have any idea the effect that food insecurity has on children? Do you have any idea the effect that growing up without the necessities has on children? They'll be illiterate, they'll be in prison, they'll have more children at too young of an age. What about the children?, you sadistic monster, what about the children?

Let's talk about welfare. How can you continue to support these drug addict, abusive, deadbeat parents sucking up these welfare benefits? By continuing to support these non working, unproductive members of society you are continuing a trend that will ruin the children and grandchildren for generations. You're encouraging them to have more children, what about those children? What about the children?

I can support or oppose literally any position with this silly argument.

Let's just accept the fact that the children are a reflection of the adults in a society, if the adults are okay then so will be the children. You can't use "the children" as a debate tactic every time you are losing an argument. It simply does not matter. The more important issue is what will be the effect on a society at large. People will die, children will be included in that number, it's sad and unavoidable.

Who here laments the dead children in the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII? No one. Because the Nazis had to be stopped. If something takes place in the US today that somehow adversely effects a few children, but moves all of American society forward in some great fashion, who will really care that a few children suffered? No one.

I have had this argument thrown at me so many countless times in my life and often on this site. It is an emotional plea, not a rational one. What about all the dead children in the nuclear bombings of Japan? But what would have happened had we not gone ahead and done that? How long would that war have gone on? How many lives did we save?

You must prove your position in a debate with a more rational argument than "the children" argument because it can literally be used to support any position, pro or con. It has been used by every side of every debate in history, it is clearly not a viable option.

Stop using it on ATS!!!

reply to post by hammanderr


People use the argument, but how many of them would downgrade their home, or re mortgage to pay for medical treatment for a child in their family? niece nephew cousin etc? how many would stall their careers, or take on the expense of a distantly related child to save the childs future?

Its very easy to love children, to be upset when they get hurt, but how many would be upset enough to do something about this themselves? to make the necessary sacrifices to save children? those that do have every right to say what about the children, those that don't shouldn't use that in an argument.

I am not talking about charitable donations, nor people who adopt, as a rule they adopt because they want a child of their own, not because they want to save the future of a child,

the world is full of hypocrites, I will probably get slated for speaking my mind, but when I see a girl of 18 set up a charity, move to another continent, run a childrens home, raise money for schooling and medical treatment, devoting 10 years of her life so far to this cause, all the while, shipping back items crafted by villagers to sell and raise more money, it puts things in perspective for me, That one girl must have saved 100 lives and given meaning to 100s more, she is the only person I have ever come across who has the moral right to say what about the children

reply to post by eccentriclady


Yeah, that's a good point. Lots of convenient concern is utilized on these threads to prevent people's effective arguments from gaining too much ground. Just start crying about the children or somesuch other irrelevant drivel and all rational debate is stalled.

reply to post by hammanderr


Think about the children??

I like your point so I will take it a step further.

Violence isn't the answer.....whats the question???

If your child was being stomped to death is it ok to kill people for it......yes it is.....but violence isn't the answer right??

Its a weak emotional point that tugs on heartstrings while ignoring the truth....the truth is...why do we keep trying to lie to each other in order to be politically correct??

We dont give a toss for the kids!!!
Is that the point of this thread? And because people say "What about the children" Does that mean we should ignore any harm that might come to children?

Sorry but I think your rant is pathetic, and much of what you wrote is incorrect! For example have you looked into when the bomb was dropped onto japan?

reply to post by VoidHawk


Ah, great, someone has arrived to help prove my whole point. So after reading my OP you've gone straight for an emotional argument. Stating that, "We don't give a toss about the kids." Clearly that was not my intention nor my statement.

Oh yeah, tell me all about how we already had the Japanese beaten and didn't need to nuke them. I love that one.

reply to post by VoidHawk


No, the point is that unless the children are central to the argument, they shouldn't be used.

Children will always be, at least indirectly, able to be cited as potential collateral damage in almost any social policy or war argument one way or another. They're almost like their own Godwin's Law in a way, and yet, they often get dredged up and used like a bludgeon in an attempt to derail a lot of lines of reasoning. The thing is that they're a lot harder to dismiss as a foul than using say ... Nazis, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, or most other forms of purely emotional appeal that get made.

Now I'm not talking about issues where the children really are central to the issue and not simply innocent by-standers.

reply to post by ketsuko


Yes, what you said. One of the endearing things about ATS is the clash of age, sophistication, education, culture and life experience. This makes for lively debates, but also for tired, old, sophomoric tactics being used by some. It's important to stay with your argument and try to prove your point using logical strategy. Simply reverting to emotional buzzwords, i.e. racist, sexist, "the children", dilutes the purity of a debate and turns it into a name calling contest.

Kinda reminds me of the "Child on board" signs plastered on cars. Do they really think I drive around endlessly looking to hit another vehicle but make a special effort not to hit theirs. If true, it could revolutionize the insurance industry...Just have all cars display the "Child on board" signs. To my way of thinking, all life should be respected, protected and nurtured regardless of age or species. Nobody i ever heard of invaded other countries targeting children, they are collateral damage wrong place wrong time victims. As long as it remains part of our global culture, war will kill children. If we ask "What about the children?" We have to only conduct war in areas where there are none or get a grip and find a way not to go to war!

reply to post by minkmouse


To me it just seems like an emotional cheap shot. You can be cruising along, making good points and backing them up with knowledge, experience, well thought out ideas and maybe a few irrefutable facts(yeah right). Then, bam!, somebody blind sides you with "the children" argument. It stops you. If you dare continue along your path you will be doing so on the graves of dead children. I just see it so often on here and find it so frustratingly without merit, I had to start this thread.

It reminds me of high school and college when we'd be having some debate in class, those of us that cared enough to debate that is. Things would be going well and good exchanges would be taking place and then some fool would get involved, just wanting to focus on an absolute moot point, totally immaterial to the greater conversation. Like, they're offended that we're talking about immigrants when none of us are immigrants, or they're offended that we're not calling them Native Americans. Whatever our discussion was would become completely derailed as we fought off accusations of sexism, racism, classism, or better yet we'd be accused of being insensitive to the plight of children.

"How can you even talk about that? You're not a woman, you don't know what it's like", I can still hear it like yesterday.

Basically I think some people don't like to think particularly deep or really look for roots and solutions to problems. They focus on the surface issue and don't allow anyone to go any deeper than that. And, it's very effective, it completely halts the conversation.

Well....That spreads the cheese a lot further on the cracker to be sure. It's not necessarily the "What about the children" issue per se but the idea of being derailed by a "moot" point. Not slagging you at all, just trying to get a handle on the root of the rant if you will.

reply to post by hammanderr



probably one of THE best posts Ive seen on ATS in a loong time... thank you.
second.....

eccentriclady
reply to post by hammanderr

 

People use the argument, but how many of them would downgrade their home, or re mortgage to pay for medical treatment for a child in their family? niece nephew cousin etc? how many would stall their careers, or take on the expense of a distantly related child to save the childs future?

Its very easy to love children, to be upset when they get hurt, but how many would be upset enough to do something about this themselves? to make the necessary sacrifices to save children? those that do have every right to say what about the children, those that don't shouldn't use that in an argument.

I am not talking about charitable donations, nor people who adopt, as a rule they adopt because they want a child of their own, not because they want to save the future of a child,

the world is full of hypocrites, I will probably get slated for speaking my mind, but when I see a girl of 18 set up a charity, move to another continent, run a childrens home, raise money for schooling and medical treatment, devoting 10 years of her life so far to this cause, all the while, shipping back items crafted by villagers to sell and raise more money, it puts things in perspective for me, That one girl must have saved 100 lives and given meaning to 100s more, she is the only person I have ever come across who has the moral right to say what about the children

this is a sore spot with me that Ive lost family and friends over. 1000 flags for this post if I could and brought tears to me because you are sooo right and honestly, i hate hypocrites becasue, yes, we've gave up alot for our kids and I will do so again.
I live in a state with alot of 'throw- away- kids, Not drug addicts, etc,....GOOD kids whose only fault was that this state turns a blind eye to parents who just don't want the kid no more.
I cannot begin to tell you how pissed I am at the number of parents I have met that have kicked their kids out and kept the benefits. hate is a strong word, but I hate these people. It hurts me to see what is happening to some of these kids here in this state and Ive only been here for a little over a year and already took in more than I can afford but am NOT willing to let them sleep on the street.

reply to post by minkmouse


Fair enough. My focus is on the children argument, just using these other examples because they're similarly moot to the larger conversation. However "the children" is the ultimate substantive irrelevancy that can always be applied across the board in any argument. In other words, it can always be used. Whereas sexism and it's ilk has to be selectively applied.

reply to post by palmalBlue2


I spent years in a small down that was just like any other, the problems for children were awful! I knew children who were not wanted at home, so were not cared for, others homeless because mummy had got another guy, some of the mums had moved abroad with the new husband and left teenagers behind!

I have done my share in taking in children that were not mine, even though I struggled to cope with the ones I had. can't say too much, don't want to identify myself, but I do believe most pay lip service to this.

I don't hate the parents, but I have no respect for them, a friend of mine has lost her teenage children to their father, as she is a functioning alcoholic, she tells me they were always clean fed, had Christmas presents etc, all of which is true, but she doesn't get the impact her problems had on her children, she wonders why one of the adult children gets hammered at the weekends, why the younger ones don't live with her, etc etc. She also picks unsuitable guys, people in denial really can't see clearly and will do all they can to protect and justify their addiction, its very sad.

The shame of it is, out governments are able to put things in place to attempt to protect children of their country but they can not parent the unwanted and uncared for children! That is the job of a parent, but many fail totally!

War, recession etc all impact dreadfully on children, I guess that can't be helped, while our societies function as they do, but the impact could be minimalized, its not! All people should be responsible for all children on some level, but they are not!

Given the damage the uk care system does to the majority of children they are responsible for, it is clear that things need to change, but if those in charge, with access to huge amounts of money can't/won't be accountable for the young, what is left?

This is the page for the young lady I mentioned, I hope you take a look, I am in awe of her, I would love to do something as worthwhile as she does, but am not in a position to do so, for many reasons.

www.facebook.com...

I have been attempting to get friends to donate, but they seem to prefer the idea of animal shelters and such like, which while admirable and worthwhile, should children not come first?

Do take care if you are helping homeless and disturbed children, in the main, they are a good bunch, but there is always one that has the ability to turn and cause untold damage. Something I have come across in my own life and seen happen to others, in fact I was driven to a breakdown by a young adult who I had live with me at a moments notice. Its good to see I am not alone, but we can't take personal responsibility for the world, just do our bit when we can.

ketsuko
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

No, the point is that unless the children are central to the argument, they shouldn't be used.

Children will always be, at least indirectly, able to be cited as potential collateral damage in almost any social policy or war argument one way or another. They're almost like their own Godwin's Law in a way, and yet, they often get dredged up and used like a bludgeon in an attempt to derail a lot of lines of reasoning. The thing is that they're a lot harder to dismiss as a foul than using say ... Nazis, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, or most other forms of purely emotional appeal that get made.

Now I'm not talking about issues where the children really are central to the issue and not simply innocent by-standers.

Unless the children are central to an argument, they shouldn't be brought up.

Well Mr. Dino, you can do that, BUT WE WON'T, EH?

Because the children are there and are being harmed by the hundreds of thousands, and millions in wars around the world, and anyone who supports actions that harm them is a psycho beyond, and really hasn't questioned why they're in purgatory.

The whole world and everything in it is about: the children, AND Freedom, Equality, Happiness for all, Safety and Land/Homes for all.

Every other issue pales in comparison.

Druggies? Versus the children.

The elites desire to make money off of foreign resources, including their poppy fields, and money, at the expense of the human race, VERSUS THE CHILDREN.

The OP just wrote up a rather psychotic post, and sounded like he needs a little work in his life on his understanding of earth 101 and what its all about....

Nor is he going to gag anyone on any forum anywhere.

He should start thinking about the safety of children and all people, their sovereign rights and revamp his belief systems so he can leave darth vaders crew and start to grow up.

And I hope he hasn't harmed a child....

reply to post by minkmouse


Those signs, children on board, are so that people who are drunk, speeding and not paying attention in traffic, will pay attention as well they should, because many don't.

I put up signs on my rented property years ago, that this is a kids camp because our landlord rented the basement out to druggies and last before we moved, prostitute, and I confronted people coming on the property as the neighborhood watch committee.

This world belongs to our great great great great great....infinite great grandchildren.

When you go through life driving, as some do, at high speeds through neighborhoods, where kids and cats are out playing, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

One of the things I told a friend a year before he died in an accident, was that he needs to slow down, after he drove me to see his boat. That if he was in an accident, what would be worse than dying or being injured is living with injuring a child or baby coming home from the hospital.

So pay attention, on earth, BABY ON BOARD!

Start to do the work we came to do, that is uncovering our flaws, and anger an issues, and changing them, and working for the happiness of others.

reply to post by Unity_99


You missed the point of the conversation. There are few society altering changes that can be made that won't adversely effect some children somewhere. The OP obviously cares about the children, but focusing on them in an argument like they are the sole people being affected by whatever you are discussing is foolish.

Unity_99
reply to post by minkmouse

 

Those signs, children on board, are so that people who are drunk, speeding and not paying attention in traffic, will pay attention as well they should, because many don't.

So the prospect of losing your license or being charged as a criminal in a court of law, or both don't send the drunk driver a clear enough message but you're saying the signs work? I wish it were that simple!