How do you make the distinction between one and the other?
- “Here, honey-stand right here and hold this sign…and don’t forget to yell “God hates fags!” to everyone that passes by.”
- “Mom, I’m going down to the anti-abortion rally because I want people to know how feel on the subject.”
Can you see the distinction?
I think it can be both effective and appropriate in cases where the issue is about kids. I brought up Malala Yousafzai in the other thread.
~Max
Sure there would, just not one that he crafted in such a way so as to not have to answer any uncomfortable questions about his assertions about generic “kids”.
If you’d like to debate an idea, setting parameters that make it difficult to disprove your vague assertions is not the best way to test that idea. Even the title takes away the agency of these kids by starting with “Using kids as spokespersons” as if they can’t possibly speak for themselves.
How you can know which is which passing by a rally on the street is impressive.
Exploitation of children is wrong whether you notice it or not.
Ok, so are you arguing that no children should advocate for political causes since you won’t be able to divine whether they are being exploited or genuinely believe in the cause?
Can children advocate for non-political causes?
If a 5 year old tells you to get the fruit gushers and not the fruit by the foot, do you scoff and tell them they only prefer said snack on account of their parents?
I have stated exactly what I mean, and I have given examples of what I believe to be exploitation of children. I cannot stop you of taking what I said and conveniently reinterpreting my words, but I am under no obligation to defend your reinterpretation.
No, I’m arguing that children advocates often don’t achieve their desired effect, regardless of whether they are sincere or not. (Two exceptions, as mentioned above, would be the kids in NYC rallying over climate change, and the Parkland survivors)
The desired effect is usually: “A kid, speaking for these causes, will shame audiences into converting. The appeal of youth will win the day.”
The actual effect is often: “This political cause is using a kid, how manipulative.”
One other advantage of using kids is that it makes it harder for the opposition to offer up criticism. If they are too critical, they get blamed for being too mean to the kid.
And when said kids have a clear interest in the issue, don’t want to forget that part.
~Max
I remember back in the day when a woman was praised for having her kids in a protest against nuclear weapons where she had to kids dance on top of a nuclear silo. Also people have used their kids to protest against abortions.
Both sides do it and I have problems pushing kids into an issue they know little about.
- Somebody here praised that woman?
- I too hate exploitation of children, no matter what the issue is.
What about that Anne Frank twerp? She wrote a book, but based on what, she was a teenager! Why should anyone read what she wrote. She couldn’t have been aware of what was really going on. I’ll bet her parents wrote it for her.
/s
In case anyone didn’t detect the sarcasm dripping from each word
If only actual examples had been brought up in this thread to debate about. :rolleyes:
And if only examples were allowed to show how kids can be capable of understanding things and speaking for themselves, but oh yeah specific examples were outlawed in the OP:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Yes kids being manipulated by adults to advocate for things they do not understand is not a good thing, but that does not encompass the entire set of “kids who speak out about politics”. I don’t think we should be limited to only talking about the former category while being forbidden from talking about the latter. That is not a debate, it’s akin to an airing of grievances.
This is part of the PR of it. The plan is to communicate one’s idea across, but in a way that neutralizes the opposition’s ability to speak back.
I didn’t say kids can’t speak for themselves. I said that their speaking is often negatively interpreted by many - especially the opponents of their cause - as a cynical ploy to use the appeal of youth to win the day.
Suppose that you’re pro-same-sex marriage, and a kid is holding a microphone at a public gathering, speaking against gay marriage. Regardless of whether he/she was indoctrinated, or came to those views independently, would the fact that he or she is a kid actually win you over to the anti-gay side? Probably not.
What plan? Who is doing this planning? Where do they meet? Who is the PR person?
Human beings have a right to speak. Teenagers are human beings. Why should they not be allowed to speak? If people want to listen, then so be it. Why is the idea of teenagers speaking so threatening to some people? 18 year olds can vote. What magic happens between the ages of 16 and 18 that all of a sudden allows you to have your own opinions and makes you worthy of speaking your mind?
Anybody saying anything related to public policy is going to be negatively interpreted by many. Such is the world we live in. So what do, nobody speaks anymore lest they be misinterpreted by many? Does that apply to anyone older than 18?
As to your question, no, regardless of the voice I will not be convinced to be anti-gay. That goes for 16 year olds, 25 year olds, 50 year olds or 90 year olds. It’s not because they are a kid it’s because what they would be advocating for is wrong in my opinion.