Obesity

[Loismustdie 0]

Do you believe this woman deserves to keep her reproductive rights LMD? I think that would be the least thing that should be done to her. Guess I'm just not a pacifist when it comes to people who would do this kind of thing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_...5j3VqVha04EtbAF

Kind of tough to reproduce while serving a lifetime sentence without parole. Don't you get it? There is no "justice" for people like this. There is only the ability of you and I to avoid barbarism whilst dealing with such horrific crimes. Without that, without those that are able to apply sense and logic to a situation, we would be left with, well, you. No thanks.

[Nimue1995 1]

Kind of tough to reproduce while serving a lifetime sentence without parole. Don't you get it? There is no "justice" for people like this. There is only the ability of you and I to avoid barbarism whilst dealing with such horrific crimes. Without that, without those that are able to apply sense and logic to a situation, we would be left with, well, you. No thanks.

In reading the article, I was of the opinion that she might not get life without parole. And I guess I react with my gut when I read about such things. It makes me want to both cry and puke. Which is probably why it's a good thing that I'm not in police work. And it's hard for me not to want to make sure that no other child goes through what that little girl went through.

[Loismustdie 0]

In reading the article, I was of the opinion that she might not get life without parole. And I guess I react with my gut when I read about such things. It makes me want to both cry and puke. Which is probably why it's a good thing that I'm not in police work. And it's hard for me not to want to make sure that no other child goes through what that little girl went through.

So what if she didn't? The answer is, either you get life without parole or we rape you of your reproductive organs? I know you think with you initial reaction, that's why you are wrong on roughly 99% of what you think, in that you don't think, you just feel.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Do you believe this freedom is absolute? Do you believe children are akin to property in this sense? Where does the line belong? I am truly curious as this is an interesting disagreement.

Yes and no. There is a line, somewhere.

Apology accepted. So, what's a reasonable limit?Then, after you answer that, look up arbitrary and see if it fits.

LMD, predictably, quickly dodged this invitation to reasoned, nuanced debate so that he could go on being vicious and self-righteous to everyone else. He always has to be 10,000% right and everyone else has to be 10,000% wrong, unlike the adults on the board who can sometimes admit others have a reasonable point and we simply agree to disagree (because we all have the freedom of choice to come to our own opinions). But if he'd had to try to find that line he admits exists, he'd also have to admit that it's bound to be an arbitrary line, just as arbitrary as anyone else's line.

It's fairly easy to predict how little minds think.

Yes, that's why it's so easy to push your buttons and get you into foaming-mouthed rage.In the midst of all this discussion of freedom of choice, where exactly does personal responsibility come in? I'm not a big fan of the Helen Lovejoy approach of doing everything "for the children," because I find it a false and manipulative debate. But let's stipulate that kids are not responsible for buying the food that is fed to them, generally, at least up to age ten or later. Conservatives love to say that with freedom must come responsibility. Parents are responsible for their children, and if they abdicate that responsibility, they have not only failed themselves and that child, but also the larger society that expected that child to become a healthy productive citizen. I'm not just talking about food. I'm talking about the parents who say, when their kid is on YouTube beating the living crap out of another child for fun, "Well, you can't watch them all the time." No, you can't, but I did expect you to raise them not to commit assault. You fail. If my kid is ever obese, or arrested for beating another kid, I failed. And liberal that I am, I think I should bear the responsibility for that failure and pay a price for it as well. The problem is that everyone wants their freedom of choice, but when it comes out bad, they don't want to take responsibility for it. If your obese kid costs ten times as much as my skinny kid in medical costs, you should be paying every last penny of it, not expecting me to chip in with higher premiums. If your kid beats the crap out of someone, maybe you should be charged as an accessory before the fact, for not teaching them better.The smoking analogy is not a bad one. Smoking is still legal, but it is regulated so that non-smokers also have a little freedom to breathe untainted air. It's not pure freedom only on the side of smokers, but it's not pure outlawing so that only non-smokers have freedom either. You can't ban bad foods, keep kids from ever smoking, and keep them virgins until marriage by force, but then again you don't have to go apeshit for "freedom" and sell soda, cigs, and porn at kiosks in school halls.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

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".

You're fat, smoke, and race...wait a minute, are you Jimmy Spencer?If not, well...good. And don't pretend you don't know perfectly well who that is.If you are, then I've got to argue with the IQ assertion.