Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Why US liberals are now buying guns too [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)27. Your response might have been better without the Lovejoyism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?" is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]
It was an exhortation in the 1964 Disney film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!"[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]
In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]
It was an exhortation in the 1964 Disney film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!"[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]
In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Who is "we"? I noticed this was asked of you by another poster, why didn't you answer?
Marengo
Dec 2016
#24
More and more the US is becoming more violent and IMO all people just want to protect themselves
RKP5637
Dec 2016
#3
As long as you follow all of the rules and regulations of the State and Federal Law.
oneshooter
Dec 2016
#8
And the number of said corpses is declining, a statistic that you lot are loathe to admit
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2016
#31
Do you have a solution that doesn't require blaming those not responsible?
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2016
#33
Gun prohibitionists are like the GOP in one respect: They rely on low-information voters...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2016
#45
"I do not care about Johnny d(e)er hunter" That remark helps illustrate *why* gun control is a wreck
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2016
#63
Yes, it would. Unfortunately, that reduction causes no small amount of anhedonia...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2016
#91
Not at all- I merely pointed out that the rate of increase of said bodies is decreasing...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2016
#90
RW extremists expect liberals to tremble, pee yellow fluid and cow down. This is the strerotype...
Eleanors38
Dec 2016
#12
Well then it seems WE are fortunate that YOU are not the Emperor and still have a choice. n/t
oneshooter
Dec 2016
#59
We value life as well. Your ugly innuendo explains why we lose elections. NT
pablo_marmol
Dec 2016
#70
I always have bought guns and support the Second Ammendment but think every gun sale should
doc03
Dec 2016
#77
Yes, celebrating Democratic Beltway obsession with gun control. Standing rib roasts.
Eleanors38
Dec 2016
#93