dreadedcandiru2 (dreadedcandiru2) wrote,
dreadedcandiru2
dreadedcandiru2

The hidden cost of deriding child-proofing.

As you all know by now, we're about to be subjected to Mike being allowed to sleep in the back seat of Jim's car in such a fashion that in an accident, he'd risk serious injury if not being killed stone dead. We also know that if there are notes attached to it, we'd end up not having to wait for the pious simpering about destroying childhood we'd get from the amen chorus at Coffee Talk. After all, were it still around, the whimpering leukocytes who see it as their mission to defend Lynn would have trotted out their bog-standard "I didn't get brutally killed when I slept on the back seat so keeping people from doing that is a waste of time."

Of course, the people don't stop at mere cherry picking. Were they to limit their specious reasoning to the following dubious chain of logic:

  1. Not wearing a seat-belt is a potentially risky behavior.
  2. I never flew threw a windshield to my messy death despite never wearing a seat-belt.
  3. Therefore, not wearing a seat-belt is not at all a risky behaviour and forcing it a waste of time.


we'd be dealing with stupid people who can be likened to shooting at something, drawing a bull's eye on what they shot and thus claimed to have perfect aim.

We're not dealing with mere slipshod thinking and dishonesty, though. We're also dealing with the same sort of nasty trick Eva Warzone plays when she doesn't want to have to care about what April is going through. Instead of appealing to shame, these people appeal to ridicule by distorting what people say in a manner that makes it look absurd. This is why Iris's retcons always had her make indulgent asides deriding the foolish people these days who whoop and screech about children cracking their skulls open; in her mind, wanting to keep people alive means wanting to take their right to be a child away.

What bothers me about all of this "I did it and I'm fine" business is that we're being asked to not look somewhere that drips like Lynn would prefer to avoid. Just as when Eva Warzone berates April for not caring about some hypothetical orphan working in a factory to feed her siblings when she really means that April should agree that her opinion on anything is meaningless, people who talk about how fine they are want us to avert our gazes from the people who did die. When asked to consider those who did, the chirping vermin state "Since X did get brutally killed, his or her death doesn't matter." All the simpering, all the nostalgia, all the ridicule....it's all a vast smoke-screen meant to protect the Lynn Johnstons of the world from caring about the people who weren't so lucky and being grateful that they were.

Well, there's that and what really pisses John and Elly off about their children: envy. More on that tomorrow.
Tags: coffee talkers
Subscribe

  • Death: the guilt group Guisewite never heard of.

    As we know, Cathy Guisewite’s strip Cathy had the main character deal with impediments to her happiness that she referred to as the four main guilt…

  • This strip conserves activism.

    I think that it’s safe to say that a lot of people are under the mistaken apprehension that Lynn is more active politically than she actually is.…

  • The issue of swimsuits.

    I think that we can all safely agree that the standard of female beauty on tap these days has something in common with other standards of beauty from…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments