Thinking Of The Children

Kotaku seems as bored of these things as I am, but this op-ed seems worthy of note due to the way in which it manages to confuse rhetoric with argumentation.  An op-ed is, by definition, opinion, but the Christian Science Monitor is reputable enough to understand that they nevertheless require some sort of baseline logical structure.  Even if that “structure” is nothing more complex than “some scientist says X, therefore Y.” 

Yet Mr. Devereaux isn’t even able to cobble together a single argument to support the notion that a lack of “moral consequence” is somehow psychologically damaging.  He alludes to some of the studies we’ve discussed in the past - but they’re simply strawmen, since none of them are directly relevant to this claim.  He makes a passionate plea for discussion - but there’s no indication that something which is, at best, barely plausible is worthy of further comment.  The CSM should really know better than to blindly accept a submission simply because it screams - Maude Flanders-esque - “Think of the children!  Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”