Cant We All Just Stop Thinking about the Children by David Penberthy - Essay Example

of the Psychology of the Concerned 15 January A Broad Standardization The Article by David Penberthy though humorous in a dark manner, does fail to facilitate any valid reason to bring home the point that the society cares too much about the health and safety of the children. 1 The writer resorts to an array of rhetorical misplay and logical fallacies to make his point. 1.1 A critical dissection of the writer’s approach unravels his ploy. 1.2 Writers uses force to eke out the readers’ support. 1.2.1 Creates a vantage point, seen from which the people who tend to care about child health and safety seem foolish. 1.2.2 Resorts to a very strong language to do so. 1.3 Fails to furnish any credible evidence that the society worries unnecessarily about child health and safety. 1.3.1 Penberthy resorts to much rhetorical manipulation to establish that the state and the society worry unnecessarily about the child health and safety. 1.3.2 Tries to obfuscate the facts by belaboring too much on petty details. 1.3.3 Resorts to personal attacks. 1.3.4 Tries to establish that the implications of abiding by child health and safety norms will lead to undesirable implications. 2. Tries to intimidate his opponents. 2.1 Extends no scientific or factual sources to establish his claims. 3. There exists no valid reason to agree with the notion that the society cares way too much about the children. Can’t We All Just Stop Thinking about the Children by David Penberthy- A Critical Analysis The morbidly hilarious article Can’t We All Just Stop Thinking About Children by David Penberthy, published in The Punch tends to put forward the argument that the contemporary parents and statutory agencies are way too much concerned about the issues associated with children, who going by the current times marked by excessive stress and shortage of time, should be dedicating their intelligence to more pragmatic issues (Penberthy 2012). Though, there is no denying the fact that David Penberthy intended the article to be humorous, if one also tends to take into consideration the sources in which it got published, the irony is that not only this article comes about as being wee bit spooky and disturbing, but the writer also resorts to a plethora of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies to accrue interest and support from the readers. The reality is that going by the ever increasing information being churned out by the scientific research and development regarding the child health and safety, the public concern for child safety is justified and the arguments being put forward by the writer in the article under consideration come out more as being argumentatively flawed, facile and somewhat in bad taste (Halpern 2003). To counter the fallacy inherent in the article, it is imperative to dissect the structure of this article in a critical, systematic and analytical manner (Weil & Anderson 2000). First and foremost, Penberthy tends to solicit the reader approval by resorting to the usage of force. On the surface this premise may appear to be flimsy. However, if one unravels the psychological stratagem resorted to by the writer; it readily becomes apparent that the essential appeal of this article is based on the use of force (Grant 1988). What the writer has done is that he has created a psychological vantage point as per which he projects himself as an authority on reason by using a very strong language and has degraded the concern about child issues to the point that anybody evincing such a concern stands to be taken for a fool. Hence, going by the possible consequential backlash associated with any kind of child issues related concerns, the reader is simply bound to buy Penberthy’s argument. Plausibly speaking, there will be very few readers who will be willing to counter the ideologically and textually punctilious stance taken by Penberthy with an equal zeal and assertion. Moreover, this hostile approach pursued by the writer is typically indicative of the fact that perhaps he was miserably short of rational and logical arguments in favor of his stance. The response being asked for by the writer has nothing to do with the actual debate pertaining to the issue being discussed by him. It fails to logically convince the more reasonable readers as to all the societal concerns being evinced about the child health and safety, are obsessive and excessive. Moreover the strong language being used by Penberthy, resorting to words like wicked, bastards and irrational hyper-vigilance, though aimed at supporting the writer’s point, actually come out as being abjectly threatening and intimidating. So far as the logical quotient of Penberthy’s argument is concerned, it is simply minimal and evasive. Yet, it is quiet apparent considering the fact that Penberthy scarcely intends to convince the readers through logic. The writer’s tactics to make a mockery of the parental concern about the impact of fast food or energy drinks on the child health, leading to a self proclaimed deductive conclusion that society is too much concerned about children, reveals a strong deficiency in the realm of both logic and emotional appeal (Curtler 2004). Rather than resorting to persuasive reasoning, the writer is more concerned to set aside the issue with a cynical and wry laugh, flimsily expecting that most of his readers will perhaps also do the same. Certainly one simply could not over emphasize the fact that when it comes to the heart of the writer’s argument, what is missing is logic and conviction. The writer fails to substantiate his thesis by referring to the commensurately strong and valid sources and scientific information. For instance it is a scientifically valid fact that a strong childhood predilection for fast food could lead to childhood obesity and many serious medical conditions (Smith 1999). The least that the writer could have done is to bring in a piece of evidence against this fact that is scientifically valid and trustworthy. Yet, he pathetically fails to do so throughout the article. However, the validation of the fact that the writer is trying to mislead the readers, no way dilutes the assertion that the writer is aptly sound in the usage of rhetorical devices, more so going by the fact that he has very little to offer in terms of facts and figures. In that context, the rhetorical technique that has been over exploited by the writer throughout the article is that of ‘amplification’ (Worthington 1994). When it comes to elaborating on child safety related issues, the writer tries to obfuscate and confuse the readers’ judgment by extending way too much detail about the issues like energy drinks or his experiences with an inflatable pool. However, he made a mistake here that he got so much carried away with his panache for amplification that he lost all contact with reason and logic. The second thing that is really horrific about the writer is that he abjectly resorts to a personal attack on the intelligence and sanctity of the people who hold views that are contrary to his assertion and conclusions. In a way such an approach not only divests the article of much support and approval, but also comes out as being in poor logic and bad taste. The persuasion being attempted by the writer is certainly abusive. Going by the fact that the writer has predominantly relied on psychological transference, rather than trying out logic and rational appeal in the service of the issue under consideration, it bolsters only the anti-intellectual credentials of the writer. The other ploy being resorted to by the author is that he tends to solicit approval in favor of his premise by belaboring that any concerns for the child health and safety tend to be excessive because resorting to such things will give way to implications that are too difficult to follow. For instance the author says that the governments should not care about the dietary preferences of the children or the unfavorable health consequences of excessive fast food consumption by children, as it will leave them with less time and resources to care about more important issues. In other words what the writer wants to say is that there is no need to care about the well being of the children because the practical implications of such concerns may give way to adverse consequences. Hence, the writer is in a way resorting to fear tactics to bring home his point. Hence, the whole argument being put forward by the writer is faulty because truth is never dependant on the fact that it will give way to consequences which may not be disliked or liked by an individual or a group of people. It goes without saying that the argument being forwarded by the writer in this article is starkly devoid of truth and logic and is excessively dependant on the usage of force and much rhetoric and fallacies, without evincing any inclination to support it with reference to valid and scientific sources. Reference List Curtler, HM 2004, Ethical Argument: Critical Thinking in Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York. Grant, GE 1988, Teaching Critical Thinking, Praeger, New York. Halpern, DF 2003, Thought & Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Penberthy, David 2012, ‘Can’t We All Just Stop Thinking about the Children’, The Punch, viewed 15 January 2013, . Smith, JC 1999, Understanding Childhood Obesity, University Press of Mississippi, Jackson, MS. Weil, D & Anderson, HK 2000, Perspectives in Critical Thinking, Peter Lang, New York. Worthington, I 1994, Persuasion, Routledge, New York. Read More