El Guapo 8 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 it can be. search youtube for news videos about amanada the fattest girl alive. her parents were court ordered to do all sorts of stuff. they let her get so fat she could hardly breath and had to crawl because she couldn't walk anymore.Abuse is Abuse. You don't have to smack someone around necessarily. Link to post Share on other sites
repoman042 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Abuse is Abuse. You don't have to smack someone around necessarily.Agreed. I also saw a show about an 800lb 19 year old. His mother lost another son before he was born, so she vowed to do anything to make this one happy. He would eat 2 sloppy joes, french fries and 2 litres of pop for BREAKFAST. When he was finally forced into the hospital he was babied so much that doctors couldnt even perform routine checkups because hed cry for his mom if he had to get a needle. In his case, she wasnt a mean parent, quite the opposite and thats what lead to his problem. This issue somply isnt as cut and dry as some of you want to make it out to be. And in his case, it is abuse because the mother never had to feed him that way as he was younger, and with no genetical problems he would have been healthy and normal if she used restraint. Link to post Share on other sites
antistuff 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You know, I just read the blog. Interesting that he doesn't realize that there are just as many societies who have seen being fat as a status symbol. It's another example of elitist thinking, must conform to X and X and be X or X, or you are an unfit mother, father, etc. What the hell happened to live and let live? Freedom of choice? Right now there are literally millions of kids worldwide who if they had a KFC combo would bite the shit out of it, with a smile. Religion can be dangerous, should we ban that to? How about bicycles? 2 wheels on a frame hurtling down the street, that's got to end. How about monkey bars? Why not just ban all foods not approved as healthy or life sustaining, but why stop there? Cigarettes. Booze. Kids shouldn't get ahold of them but they do, we should just eliminate it. After all, it's bad parenting to keep a bottle around. I am at the point with this liberal bullshit of just waiting for that call to rise up and start chucking shoes at mother****ers. Seriously, we have lost our damn sense of purpose as a country if this is actually a ****ing debate.hmmm....two choices that parents make for their kids and the kids cannot do much about until they get older. unhealthy food and religion. i think you're on to something this time lois. they should both be banned. the rest of the stuff is a personal choice even for children and should be left alone. Link to post Share on other sites
antistuff 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Abuse is Abuse. You don't have to smack someone around necessarily.the mom even says in one of the news clips something about how they used to try to keep her from eating but she would throw temper tantrums so they just let her eat and eat until she got to be 400lbs. there is no doubt that this was a form of abuse, they let her get so fat that it was a life threatening condition. so now the question comes up, where do we draw the line here? or do we just let her parents feed her until her fat suffocates her in her sleep? im actually not at all sure how i feel about this. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Who ****ing cares. Have you ever seen the sort of "children" this impacts most? It's just Darwin offsetting irresponsible breeding by the people who are least qualified to add to the gene pool.say, Scraaaaam.... aren't you morbidly obese? Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 WIC is a different program from food stamps. One of the morons I work with, who's dirt poor with a 7 year old child, and now another on the way, who almost makes me want to be republican with all the handouts she gets from the govt, applied for WIC and they have a nutritionist on hand to weigh you, take your vitals, and tell you what you can and cant buy with the money they give you. Eggs, brown rice, 2% milk.The liberal in me says these programs are ok, but the republican in my says they need to be on time limits, ending after a certain period on them, but do you just withhold the money once their time has expired and you let the kids go hungry. I wish I had the answers. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 the mom even says in one of the news clips something about how they used to try to keep her from eating but she would throw temper tantrums so they just let her eat and eat until she got to be 400lbs. there is no doubt that this was a form of abuse, they let her get so fat that it was a life threatening condition. so now the question comes up, where do we draw the line here? or do we just let her parents feed her until her fat suffocates her in her sleep? im actually not at all sure how i feel about this. What we shouldn't do is make law based on the extreme. For every old person who makes a right from the wrong lane there are thousands who don't, but that one damn near killed me today. I don't expect grey hairs to no longer drive. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 the mom even says in one of the news clips something about how they used to try to keep her from eating but she would throw temper tantrums so they just let her eat and eat until she got to be 400lbs. there is no doubt that this was a form of abuse, they let her get so fat that it was a life threatening condition. so now the question comes up, where do we draw the line here? or do we just let her parents feed her until her fat suffocates her in her sleep? im actually not at all sure how i feel about this.Think about the people who have gotten so fat they cannot get up or leave their house. Some one is bringing them food. What baffles me, is they are almost always poor. I don't get it. Some of these guys eat 2-3 dozen eggs and a lb of bacon for breakfast. That is like a $10-15 breakfast. How do they afford to eat?say, Scraaaaam.... aren't you morbidly obese?I thought it, but I did not want to point out his hypocrisy because I liked his post.WIC is a different program from food stamps. One of the morons I work with, who's dirt poor with a 7 year old child, and now another on the way, who almost makes me want to be republican with all the handouts she gets from the govt, applied for WIC and they have a nutritionist on hand to weigh you, take your vitals, and tell you what you can and cant buy with the money they give you. Eggs, brown rice, 2% milk.The liberal in me says these programs are ok, but the republican in my says they need to be on time limits, ending after a certain period on them, but do you just withhold the money once their time has expired and you let the kids go hungry. I wish I had the answers.Welcome.(The sad thing is WIC is one of the programs that I think is OK, because it truly is for the kids)What we shouldn't do is make law based on the extreme. For every old person who makes a right from the wrong lane there are thousands who don't, but that one damn near killed me today. I don't expect grey hairs to no longer drive.True, but you can use different laws, such as depraved indifference homicide. But apply that to abuse. Link to post Share on other sites
antistuff 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What we shouldn't do is make law based on the extreme. For every old person who makes a right from the wrong lane there are thousands who don't, but that one damn near killed me today. I don't expect grey hairs to no longer drive.very good point. however, we need a way to do something about the extremes. somewhere along the line this will involve somebody making an arbitrary decision on what qualifies as an extreme and what doesn't. in the case with driving there is a system in place where people who drive dangerously and wrecklessly eventually lose their license (a slightly weird example because i would argue that the entire system is in place to make money and that is merely a byproduct of it, but thats here no there). in the case in question somebody will have to decide what qualifies as feeding your kids to death and what doesn't. even if the way things are now seems reasonable (this is the only case i've ever heard of parents being accused of abuse for this) there will always be some wackjob who will start a crusade. and, while i am admittedly ignorant of how all this stuff works, it would seem to me that if the infrastructure is in place to do it once it can be done again on less severe grounds. and to be fair im not sure exactly where i consider the extremes to lie in this case. if you fed your kids nothing but mcdonalds every day you are coming damn close to poisoning them. Link to post Share on other sites
BigLebowski 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What we shouldn't do is make law based on the extreme. For every old person who makes a right from the wrong lane there are thousands who don't, but that one damn near killed me today. I don't expect grey hairs to no longer drive.You mean like, we shouldn't throw people in jail for driving with a BAC of .2? That is pretty extreme. We shouldn't differentiate between having 7 grams of weed vs 40 lbs because 40 lbs is pretty extreme. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 You mean like, we shouldn't throw people in jail for driving with a BAC of .2? That is pretty extreme. We shouldn't differentiate between having 7 grams of weed vs 40 lbs because 40 lbs is pretty extreme. No, what I meant was identifying a small portion of society who we feel are abusing children through food and then trying to draw up legislation that tries to curb it. There is no real clear line- what's an o.k. amount? Not to mention, what about the opposite? What about vegetarians who basically starve there children? That's just as bad, and as a matter of fact has been dealt with before in court. We have become obsessed in this country with everybody else. Just worry about taking care of you and your own, help your fellow man when you can, and life will be as good as it can be. There is no reason to try and take my Popeyes chicken night away from my daughter and I. After Obama was elected it's almost all I have left to cling to. Link to post Share on other sites
loogie 115 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 All you fatties sure do get upset when someone threatens to start taking away cheeseburgers. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (AmScray @ Monday, January 12th, 2009, 1:04 PM) *Rodents don't give birth to birds. "Given enough time..."; crowtrobot Nature always finds a way... Link to post Share on other sites
Solar 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 And did you know that China has more obese people than America has people?Not sure where you got this from. I spent just over 3 weeks in china last year and probably saw fewer than 10 overweight people total.I think it all boils down to a general lack of understanding of the merits of decent food, and a lack of the knowledge and/or effort to cook meals. I would say theres also a factor of parents being unable to stand up to their kids. I see parents buying crappy food with their kids in the supermarket all the time, and I'll bet that often there is no reason other than to prevent the kid from crying/screaming in public. Link to post Share on other sites
James D 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Consider the single parent living check to check - sometimes they best they can afford for the day is a couple Double Cheeseburgers from McD's to feed their kid(s). Not everyone makes a decent enough amount of money or have the time to prepare healthy meals for their family on a consistent basis. Of course if they are in a decent enough financial situation and have the budget then it comes down to laziness.Only quickly skimmed the rest of the thread, but I have to reply to this utterly insane, backward-thinking, wrong, majorly tilt-inducing OP.This has got to be one of the most absurd, horrible suggestions I have ever read. What a load of ****ing bullshit!!! Are you even serious here? It's not too late to add an 'sw' if you like.This mindset, quoted above, sums up absolutely everything about the 'benefits culture' (you'll all call it different things in different countries) that I hate. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 No, what I meant was identifying a small portion of society who we feel are abusing children through food and then trying to draw up legislation that tries to curb it. There is no real clear line- what's an o.k. amount? Not to mention, what about the opposite? What about vegetarians who basically starve there children? That's just as bad, and as a matter of fact has been dealt with before in court. We have become obsessed in this country with everybody else. Just worry about taking care of you and your own, help your fellow man when you can, and life will be as good as it can be. There is no reason to try and take my Popeyes chicken night away from my daughter and I. After Obama was elected it's almost all I have left to cling to.It's not just as bad at all, it's not even close to being just as bad. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 It's not just as bad at all, it's not even close to being just as bad. So, you are of the mindset that no food is better than bad food? O.K. Link to post Share on other sites
BigLebowski 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So, you are of the mindset that no food is better than bad food? O.K.What makes you single out vegetarians for not feeding their children? Child abuse is child abuse.And I think you could set a number for obesity and the punishment for it. As a matter of fact, one already exists. There is no arbitrary thinking involved. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What makes you single out vegetarians for not feeding their children? Child abuse is child abuse.And I think you could set a number for obesity and the punishment for it. As a matter of fact, one already exists. There is no arbitrary thinking involved. This is getting nuttier and nuttier. 30 pounds depends on the person, it's a guidleine, not a ****ing law. Not to mention, they could be just genetically overweight, some people just are, no matter what. I singled out vegetarians because of a case that happened last year, remember the vegans who were basically starving there kids because the kids were not getting enough nutrients? Interesting, it never occured to me to take away veganism as a choice for kids. Not once. This is absolutely ****ing nuts. We are actually sitting here talking about arbitrarily just taking away freedom of choice like it's ****ING NORMAL. The thing is,nobody has actually said that but that is where this road leads, or it leads to a 40% tax on "junk food." It's just a matter of time. Link to post Share on other sites
repoman042 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This is getting nuttier and nuttier. 30 pounds depends on the person, it's a guidleine, not a ****ing law. Not to mention, they could be just genetically overweight, some people just are, no matter what. I singled out vegetarians because of a case that happened last year, remember the vegans who were basically starving there kids because the kids were not getting enough nutrients? Interesting, it never occured to me to take away veganism as a choice for kids. Not once. This is absolutely ****ing nuts. We are actually sitting here talking about arbitrarily just taking away freedom of choice like it's ****ING NORMAL. The thing is,nobody has actually said that but that is where this road leads, or it leads to a 40% tax on "junk food." It's just a matter of time.jeez.. youve got a real pottymouth Link to post Share on other sites
antistuff 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 somebody ask lois if he thinks heroin should be illegal. when he looks at you like you have two heads and says ok course ask him why. try to keep a straight face. i would do it myself but i just don't have it in me today. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 say, Scraaaaam.... aren't you morbidly obese?Yes, I'm hugely fat, smoke cigarettes, race cars, use recreational drugs, etc, etc. The things I said don't apply to me because I pay my own way and and have an enormous IQ. Whatever I add to the gene pool does the rest of the world a favor, in spite of my own tastes for deep dish pizza.It isn't hypocrisy. It's just another example of life not being "fair". Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 somebody ask lois if he thinks heroin should be illegal. when he looks at you like you have two heads and says ok course ask him why. try to keep a straight face. i would do it myself but i just don't have it in me today. Because fried chicken is addictive and could cause you to murder people to get a fix. Grow up. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 jeez.. youve got a real pottymouth Hey, a little truth from you. Very nice. Link to post Share on other sites
repoman042 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hey, a little truth from you. Very nice.yes ive been spouting lies about childhood obesity. Thats my only real agenda Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now