Debate Guide: State hypocrisy

We have noticed a number of "tells" re. this policy outlook being a moral scheme completely unrelated to safeguarding. Use these as short, punchy arguments at the beginning or end of replies to demonstrate your skepticism:

• Common wisdom would tell us that a sexual offense has a victim and a perpetrator. But this isn't strictly true in CSA clown-world. Criminalisation of youth details examples where both minors were treated as perpetrators and victims at the same time. If this were not a moral scheme to appease prejudice, wouldn't our reaction to such events be fundamentally different?

• Why do the same governments who "protect" and "safeguard" minors by denying them a variety of civil liberties, permit the abuse of foreign children in waged slavery for their own economies' benefit? The reason is because the suffering of some invisible brown children in another economy matters not to the foundations of their own hive-maintenance, sex-policing moral scheme.

• In many western developed countries, a child is potentially responsible for his decision to commit crime from the age of ten or even earlier. Firstly, if they are capable of choosing to commit burglary or murder at 10, why not a sexual relationship? Secondly, if they are not adults in this regard, why punish these "children" as such and institutionalize them as soon as they engage in "delinquency", when the result is often a lifetime cycle of criminality? The answer is because these countries care not about the fundamental interests of "children", when they have a predatory behaviorist moral scheme to protect.

• Politicians and officials repeatedly talk up "evidence based" policies, but then go on to make ludicrous appeals to the "protective instincts" of parents. They can't have it both ways; either the measures are a reactionary moral scheme or have some grounding in an evidence based approach to child welfare.

• If governments were genuinely concerned about "protecting children", they would also be concerned about the results of cyclical paternalism and the associated phenomena. Only, these are adverse consequences of their own sex-policing moral scheme, so naturally they avoid addressing it.

• The pedophile is pretty much a shape-shifting lizard to the establishment at this point, in that he can be everything bad, all at once. One perfect example of the moral opportunism surrounding the "pedophile" is how in the sciences, pedophiles are presented as 'childlike', 'regressive' and 'weak' men, who can only cope with 'childish' relationships, yet within the criminal justice system, the trauma from these "childish" relationships is said to result directly from a deliberate, intelligent manipulation and abuse of a power gap.

• We seem to have a nepi problem in Western Society, so let's talk about it. Television networks allow adverts in which mothers intimately coddle, even kiss the buttocks of their babies. What if the father were to carry out such an abusive outrage? If he can't, then why? Surely this isn't because we are in the midst of a cynical moral scheme?

See also

• Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria.