Arresting fat kids parents

Should fat kids be taken away from there parents

  • It's wrong

    Votes: 51 71.8%
  • It's right

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
Lets throw all the people with mental illness in jail.
That's where many of them end up, anyway.

If a person's mental illness causes them to HARM another person, then yeah, they belong in jail, or in a mental hospital where they can get treatment.

Turning your kid into a ticking time bomb of clogged arteries, respiratory problems, depression, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc, is HARMING the child.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The "soda tax" was originally included in one of the proposed health care bills before Congress. It was removed. Apparently "several of the nation's leading health experts" think it should be added back in.

But, really, what do health experts know, anyway? :roll:
They apparently don't know anything about live and let live do they?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's nobody's fault... let's go with that. Let's not take responsibility for our own actions, but instead, claim complete ignorance! Whee!

Her kid was 1000 lbs, not because she "loved him so much" but because she was trying to fill some hole inside herself caused by a previous loss. That isn't "love", it's mental illness.
You endorse using the state to control other people's bodies when they are not harming you. So logically you are okay with the state controlling people's bodies...say like people that use marijuana? Or is this where your rationalization and inconsistency about who can own their bodies comes into play?

So the kid is a fat fucking whale. So you smoke pot. Big deal, it's nobody's business and certainly not the state's in either case. I don't approve of the fat kid, it's gross, but it's his life, not mine.

What is wrong with this - Eat what you want, smoke what you want, leave other people alone, even if they smoke pot and you don't or they eat enough to become morbidly obese and you disapprove. Freedom for me isn't what YOU think it should be, nor is freedom for YOU, what I think it should it be.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
You endorse using the state to control other people's bodies when they are not harming you. So logically you are okay with the state controlling people's bodies...say like people that use marijuana? Or is this where your rationalization and inconsistency about who can own their bodies comes into play?

So the kid is a fat fucking whale. So you smoke pot. Big deal, it's nobody's business and certainly not the state's in either case. I don't approve of the fat kid, it's gross, but it's his life, not mine.

What is wrong with this - Eat what you want, smoke what you want, leave other people alone, even if they smoke pot and you don't or they eat enough to become morbidly obese and you disapprove. Freedom for me isn't what YOU think it should be, nor is freedom for YOU, what I think it should it be.

You don't seem to understand.

Children do not "eat what they want". They eat what their parents FEED THEM.

My own choice to smoke cannabis can't be compared to a child being essentially force-fed by their mother. Nobody is forcing me to smoke. If I want to stop, I simply remove cannabis from my life. A child who is overfed by "well-intentioned" parents CANNOT remove those parents from their life, can they? They can't simply STOP eating what their parents feed them, or they would literally starve to death.

I appreciate your commitment to these perceived "individual liberties", but in this case, your argument holds no water.

Are you also saying that children who are physically or sexually abused shouldn't be removed from the parents, if the parents are the abusers? If not, then you're contradicting your own statements about "freedom" "liberty", etc. If a parent should have the "freedom" to turn their child into a health nightmare, shouldn't they also be "free" to rape them and beat them at will?
 

bossman88188

Well-Known Member
Anyone who think's any part of taking children away for anything other then physical or sexual abuse. There are a few more good reason's I am sure.
But other then that CPS is the worst thing that can happen to a child.
The amount's of abuses and the way they are treated is barbaric.
If they ever try to put there hand's on my children.
They will get a .44 to the face. And I will not just scare them.
 

Stoney McFried

Well-Known Member
You obviously haven't met my kids.They WILL refuse to eat for an entire day at a time (I suspect more if I'd let them) if they don't like something and aren't offered an alternative.Since holding them down and force feeding them is abusive, sometimes I give in and let them have a less healthy choice just so they get food in them.You can always sneak good things in if you're good at it.
You don't seem to understand.

Children do not "eat what they want". They eat what their parents FEED THEM.
But the problem is, you're blaming the parents for the rise in obesity.In extreme cases like the one you showed,yes,the woman should perhaps be educated on nutrition.A 1000 pound teenager is an extreme case.
However, most of the rise in obesity can be attributed to a few factors:
1:BMI,which is a faulty means of assessing overall health in the first place,IMO,was recently changed.(1998).Overnight,because the government lowered the number necessary to be classified ,25 million Americans suddenly found themselves "obese".In fact,a woman of 5'4,at 145 pounds is considered obese.BMI does not take into account different muscle and bone densities or the unique body structure of an individual.
2:I'll say it over and over again.High Fructose corn syrup.Since they subsidized corn,it is in nearly EVERYTHING.Why? Because it's cheaper than sugar.Therefore, the foods that use it tend to be cheaper,so many people on a budget are forced to make a compromise.People in the 50's drank just as much soda as we do now,and by todays standards, the typical American diet of that time period which consisted of plenty of red meat,starches,saturated fats and alcohol could in no way be considered healthy.Yet they tended to be thinner than we are today.Why?HFCS wreaks havoc on your metabolism.It fucks with insulin production,makes you feel unsatisfied because it literally leeches nutrients from your body,damages the liver, interferes with collagen and elastin production(thereby compromising the body structure,producing the flabbiness and sagging skin in obese people).It more readily converts to fat than any other sugar.http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html I bet if you look,you can see a direct correlation year by year since corn was subsidized in the seventies between that and the rising percentage of obese people.I personally drink too much damn pepsi,and I know it's bad for me, but I've always loved it.I have noticed that since they started using corn syrup in soda, which has always been a favorite American beverage,people have begun to see their health go straight down the toilet.:peace:
My own choice to smoke cannabis can't be compared to a child being essentially force-fed by their mother. Nobody is forcing me to smoke. If I want to stop, I simply remove cannabis from my life. A child who is overfed by "well-intentioned" parents CANNOT remove those parents from their life, can they? They can't simply STOP eating what their parents feed them, or they would literally starve to death.

Now doob, it's not even the same thing.Feeding your children stems from an instinct to love and care for them.Noone is perfect and every parent makes mistakes.Someone whose kids get fat because of a lack of education or funds can in no way be compared to the act of sexual abuse.The first is done with good intent by a loving, well meaning parent who in many cases believes the child will grow out of it,or who does not see anything wrong with the chubbiness because parental love should ideally be unconditional, and therefore it tends to blind you. The second act is done by an individual who is fucked in the head and seeks power or gratification by domination over a weaker individual either by sexually or physically abusing them.In other words, it is not an act of love,nor by any stretch of the imagination can it be borne of good intentions.
I find it interesting how so many people feel that parents who have fat children are somehow worse than parents who are drugging their children as a means to keep them in line.Of course fat people are an easy scapegoat to blame healthcare costs on...big pharma wants them to face shame and ridicule so they will turn to a doctor for help.And that usually involves a prescription.
But noone is yelling about parents who are taking their children to doctors because they can't get them to behave because most parents have been cowed into believing that their children will be taken from them if they discipline them in a manner not "approved" by the powers that be just so they can put them on amphetamines or some other medication designed to make them fall into lockstep like good little zombies.Of course not.That's considered to be good parenting nowadays.:roll:
I appreciate your commitment to these perceived "individual liberties", but in this case, your argument holds no water.

Are you also saying that children who are physically or sexually abused shouldn't be removed from the parents, if the parents are the abusers? If not, then you're contradicting your own statements about "freedom" "liberty", etc. If a parent should have the "freedom" to turn their child into a health nightmare, shouldn't they also be "free" to rape them and beat them at will?
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
My point was not that children won't refuse to eat things they don't want to, but that CHILDREN are not the ones setting the grocery budget, writing the list, doing the shopping and preparing the meals. If they were, I suspect childhood obesity would be a much bigger problem than it currently is =)

Parents buy the food, parents prepare the meals. The child has very little choice in the matter, and eventually will become hungry enough that they will eat whatever is put in front of them (I have a picky eater who has, on occasion, refused to eat for a day or two - after which time, a plate of broccoli starts to seem like a pretty tasty meal after all), BUT, aside from the typical grocery store tantrums over a box of sugary cereal or bag of chips which many parents cave in to - the CHILD has very little influence on what foods are bought and served in a household.

I, for one, am not a short order cook. I prepare ONE meal, for the family, and if you don't like it you can wait until the next meal and see if your luck improves. There are foods my kids flat out refuse to eat, but that doesn't keep me from serving them, or persuade me to switch out vegetables with Little Debbie cakes simply because my kids WILL eat those.

I've never said that removing a child from the home should be the first choice in matters like this, but when you're dealing with a parent who simply will NOT acknowledge that their behavior is harming their child(ren) EVEN after nutritional counseling, etc, then what else is there to do? Doing nothing certainly isn't going to help, is it? It doesn't set an example for OTHER parents whose own behavior might be harmful to their children, either. We, as people, generally look for the easy way out of everything. If doing nothing is the easy way out, that's what people are going to do. Continue to shirk the responsibility and blame it on HFCS (which is easily avoided, if you don't eat packaged foods, btw) and the problem is only going to get worse. "We can't help it our kids are getting fat. HFCS is in everything, we can't avoid it!" That's just blaming someone else for your OWN laziness.

Parents need to understand that kids are people, too. They have their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I've never met a child who said "I want to grow up to be so obese I can't walk on my own!" or "I want to have a double-bypass before I'm 30!". No, children want to be successful, and WE, as parents, are the ONLY ones who can give them the nurturing and INTELLIGENT guidance to help them reach their goals. If we aren't doing our jobs, we ought to be "fired", just as anyone else who doesn't do their job should be.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Well apparently more people think it's wrong than right so we win
what is appalling is that over a quarter of those responding think it is totally all right for government to micromanage the lives of its citizens. that a bunch of bureaucrats should have the ability to decide what is or is not a proper upbringing for our children. that whether or not something is a crime can be determined by the political correctness of the situation.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
My point was not that children won't refuse to eat things they don't want to, but that CHILDREN are not the ones setting the grocery budget, writing the list, doing the shopping and preparing the meals. If they were, I suspect childhood obesity would be a much bigger problem than it currently is =)

Parents buy the food, parents prepare the meals. The child has very little choice in the matter, and eventually will become hungry enough that they will eat whatever is put in front of them (I have a picky eater who has, on occasion, refused to eat for a day or two - after which time, a plate of broccoli starts to seem like a pretty tasty meal after all), BUT, aside from the typical grocery store tantrums over a box of sugary cereal or bag of chips which many parents cave in to - the CHILD has very little influence on what foods are bought and served in a household.
I was cooking my own breakfasts early in the morning before mom got up when I was 8 years old, bacon, eggs and toast, sometimes I would make omelets with cheese, ham, onion, tomato, peppers in them. I could eat as much as I could make and we snacked constantly, mom cooked good wholesome meals. We never had junk food in our house, we went to a fancy restaurant once a year when dad got his X-Mas bonus check, McDonalds was reserved for special occasions. What happened to America since then? It wasn't really that long ago. I got the Belt across my ass a few times when I was growin up from my dad, but mom never hit hard enough so she would slap us across the face. I make no qualms about givin my kids a good spankin with my hand if they truly deserve it ( twice so far). My parents gave me a small allowance every week if my grades were good and extra if the grades were really good. I could do whatever I wanted with my money and I bought plenty of junk food and candy.
 

Stoney McFried

Well-Known Member
See, I disagree there.A child not being fed that long could be construed as neglect.Which will get them taken in a heartbeat.Also,the child's body needs fuel...when the body goes into starvation mode,it consumes muscle first,which is detrimental to overall health as well.So if it comes down to my kid going without food in their belly for two days or a microwave macaroni and cheese cup,I'm gonna go ahead and give them the macaroni and cheese cup.I can definitely say no to the candy, though.
Parents buy the food, parents prepare the meals. The child has very little choice in the matter, and eventually will become hungry enough that they will eat whatever is put in front of them (I have a picky eater who has, on occasion, refused to eat for a day or two - after which time, a plate of broccoli starts to seem like a pretty tasty meal after all), BUT, aside from the typical grocery store tantrums over a box of sugary cereal or bag of chips which many parents cave in to - the CHILD has very little influence on what foods are bought and served in a household.

I, for one, am not a short order cook. I prepare ONE meal, for the family, and if you don't like it you can wait until the next meal and see if your luck improves. There are foods my kids flat out refuse to eat, but that doesn't keep me from serving them, or persuade me to switch out vegetables with Little Debbie cakes simply because my kids WILL eat those.

But see, this goes on the assumption that there's only one way to raise a child.It also doesn't allow for variations in metabolism,income,and overall health.I've seen big people who are plenty healthy.They're just big people.And not everyone who is fat got that way by sitting around stuffing their face,though a lot of people assume that.Everyone is different.Some metabolisms are slower,muscle mass varies,and genetics and health problems need to be considered as well.The very fact that the BMI index was altered played a large part in this supposed obesity epidemic.If you're using a faulty gage like BMI,fucking Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI puts him in the obese category.
And who gets to determine whether or not parental behavior is harmful to a child?Since when do we have to be role model material for every bleeding heart in the world?Some would argue that our pot use makes us bad parents, even though I personally do not smoke with my children present.Some folks would argue that a lack of religion is harmful to a child.Where do we draw the line when it comes to letting people raise their children in the manner they see fit?I say if we must attack the parents of fat kids, why, let's go for parents whose kids are underweight.Let's get the parents who are pumping amphetamines into their kids,risking permanent heart and brain damage.Lets get after the people who brainwash their kids with religious fairytales without ever considering letting the child choose for their self later in life when they can actually analyze it objectively!Let's chase down the parents who lie and say there is a Santa Claus!
I've never said that removing a child from the home should be the first choice in matters like this, but when you're dealing with a parent who simply will NOT acknowledge that their behavior is harming their child(ren) EVEN after nutritional counseling, etc, then what else is there to do? Doing nothing certainly isn't going to help, is it? It doesn't set an example for OTHER parents whose own behavior might be harmful to their children, either.
Not passing blame.Just saying that unfortunately, foods with HFCS tend to be cheaper.And it is in nearly everything,I swear.So my point is, if you're poor,not only do you have to stick to a budget so that everyone can eat SOMETHING on a daily basis,but most likely you don't have the money to buy decent health insurance.So you tend to go to the doctor only in the event of an emergency.And since it costs an arm and a leg for an emergency visit,and more than likely these people have to choose between paying the light bill or paying the doctor's bill,it ends up driving up health care costs for everyone else because the health care industry is going to find a way to get that money back somehow.
We, as people, generally look for the easy way out of everything. If doing nothing is the easy way out, that's what people are going to do. Continue to shirk the responsibility and blame it on HFCS (which is easily avoided, if you don't eat packaged foods, btw) and the problem is only going to get worse. "We can't help it our kids are getting fat. HFCS is in everything, we can't avoid it!" That's just blaming someone else for your OWN laziness.
I also never heard a child say,I want to grow up and work a factory job..or I want to grow up and climb the corporate ladder,amassing money and possessions so I can fit the idea of "success" that society measures everyone by.Or how about,When I grow up I want to beat myself up for not looking exactly like the totally unrealistic physical "ideal" all the magazines wave in my face everyday.I want to be judged on my appearance alone,because being fat is the absolute worst thing a person can be!:confused:
Parents need to understand that kids are people, too. They have their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I've never met a child who said "I want to grow up to be so obese I can't walk on my own!" or "I want to have a double-bypass before I'm 30!". No, children want to be successful, and WE, as parents, are the ONLY ones who can give them the nurturing and INTELLIGENT guidance to help them reach their goals. If we aren't doing our jobs, we ought to be "fired", just as anyone else who doesn't do their job should be.
Amen.
what is appalling is that over a quarter of those responding think it is totally all right for government to micromanage the lives of its citizens. that a bunch of bureaucrats should have the ability to decide what is or is not a proper upbringing for our children. that whether or not something is a crime can be determined by the political correctness of the situation.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
The facts are that when a governmental agency is used.... the community is weakened. Looking to the State or Feds is not the answer. having strangers lord over your parenting skills is not the way to go.

The community you live in is where help needs to be given. Closeness brings in the personal angles, as opposed to a faceless bureaucrat who's interests in the child are skewed to their performance guidelines.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You don't seem to understand.

Children do not "eat what they want". They eat what their parents FEED THEM.

My own choice to smoke cannabis can't be compared to a child being essentially force-fed by their mother. Nobody is forcing me to smoke. If I want to stop, I simply remove cannabis from my life. A child who is overfed by "well-intentioned" parents CANNOT remove those parents from their life, can they? They can't simply STOP eating what their parents feed them, or they would literally starve to death.

I appreciate your commitment to these perceived "individual liberties", but in this case, your argument holds no water.

Are you also saying that children who are physically or sexually abused shouldn't be removed from the parents, if the parents are the abusers? If not, then you're contradicting your own statements about "freedom" "liberty", etc. If a parent should have the "freedom" to turn their child into a health nightmare, shouldn't they also be "free" to rape them and beat them at will?
I don't think advocating government as a "solution" to obesity is the right way to go. I'm not a young man anymore but have always been in good shape, played sports as a younger guy and still split my wood by hand and often hike the deep woods, so obesity is not on my horizon. So I respect fitness and hard work but I just don't think it's up to me to tell another person how to live, even if they are obese.

When we permit government to get it's foot in the door, we know that result.
The "fat police" is a bureacracy I'm not eager to implement or support anymore than the DEA.

Concerning somebody raping or abusing any child, that is horrible. I would probably intervene personally or in some cases consider some level of societal intervention. That is a tough question and I may not have a pat answer.
However the difference between a kid stuffing his face to obesity and being raped is worth noting. One involves definite force while the other may not.
 

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Yes we need government for everything.
Maybe they should provide the parents with the 'right' food?
Maybe We should phase out parents altogether.
Surely the government can do it better.
We can run your country better then the citizens of that country.
We can care for all the sick.
We can prop up the banks.
We can buy LRADs for all the cops.
We can manage big buisness.
We can Geneticly engineer your foods.
We can force soda manufacturers use corn-syrup instead of suger.
We can put mercury in your MANDITORY shots.
We can tell you what to eat.
We can tell you what not to eat.
We can do it all.
WE ARE YOUR GOD!
 

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
This is fucking disturbing.Watch the video.
http://www.familyethicsnotdestruction.com/
Corruption for money?! :shock: Say it ain't so!

I'm not surprised in the least. Everything and everyone else are commodities. Why should it be any different for our children?

How much you wanna bet that parents whose children have been taken away for obesity are poor? How many, in ratio (i.e., truly obese children, in as accurate a side-by-side comparison as possible), have been taken from wealthy parents? I'm willing to bet the house.
 

headband707

Active Member
The Gov. FDA should be charged for allowing TRANS FATS!!!!!! to get out of control and these kids are the product of their stupid discsions. Can't blame kids or ppl for liking food or things that taste good ffs. When they took trans fat out of food it tastes like shit . peace out Headband707
 

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
Don't forget that it was stated long ago in this thread that kids have 2 of their 3 daily meals at school, five days a week, over nine months of the year... so let's keep on blaming only the parents, huh?! Our system has done so right by our children, huh?! Some schools have recently removed much of the junk from their menus, at the insistence of concerned parents. It's about time! I graduated H.S. 21 yrs. ago (yes, I'm old, lol), and I remember how the menus for breakfast and lunch got more & more junkie and less & less healthy. (I know for a fact that it's gotten worse since I've graduated; I raised two kids.) I came home to wholesome, home-cooked meals. (And I was "smart" enough not to inform my mom about the school's menus, because I wanted the junk that she wouldn't let me have for meals.) Fortunately I was an active kid with a fast metabolism!
 

dimension 2350

New Member
Don't forget that it was stated long ago in this thread that kids have 2 of their 3 daily meals at school, five days a week, over nine months of the year... so let's keep on blaming only the parents, huh?! Our system has done so right by our children, huh?! Some schools have recently removed much of the junk from their menus, at the insistence of concerned parents. It's about time! I graduated H.S. 21 yrs. ago (yes, I'm old, lol), and I remember how the menus for breakfast and lunch got more & more junkie and less & less healthy. (I know for a fact that it's gotten worse since I've graduated; I raised two kids.) I came home to wholesome, home-cooked meals. (And I was "smart" enough not to inform my mom about the school's menus, because I wanted the junk that she wouldn't let me have for meals.) Fortunately I was an active kid with a fast metabolism!
I also said the same thing a couple pages back.
 
Top