Obesity

[Sheiky 0]

No, but the track does, and so we wear helmets. I would make her wear one anyway to help minimize risk, that's for sure. We don't eat "bad" food everyday, and "bad" food would include things like Mac and cheese, which kids love, and so do adults after a bad day. Little chocolate donuts. Steak. Where exactly would the line be drawn? What would the penalty be? One kids metabolism can handle more than another, etc. There are so many angles to this it makes my headspin, and not in that good, after BJ way. Gotta be honest, I am steaming about this Sheiky character calling me a bad parent. You don't know me, mothe****er.

I should have made it clearer that I was speaking hypothetically as if you did feed your kid crap all the time (over a reasonable limit).

[Loismustdie 0]

If you sell an addictive product which slowly (or quickly) kills your customer, I'd say you share some responsibility with the fools that buy your product.

This very ****ing site sells an addictive product. Jesus this is getting weirder by the minute.

[Sheiky 0]

So would I, but that's still my right if I want to, that's the point. Seriously, you don't know me like that. Freedom of choice crap. The truth comes out.

The whole point is that it shouldn't be your ****ing right as it's not you you are affecting.

[Loismustdie 0]

I should have made it clearer that I was speaking hypothetically as if you did feed your kid crap all the time (over a reasonable limit).

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

[Sheiky 0]

This very ****ing site sells an addictive product. Jesus this is getting weirder by the minute.

Are you really that effing stupid to compare cigarrette to an online poker forum? And if not, are you really that stupid to argue that companies who sell life threatening products to their customers should not be made to tell their customers before they buy?

[Loismustdie 0]

The whole point is that it shouldn't be your ****ing right as it's not you you are affecting.

This is absolutely 100% insane and wrong.

[Sheiky 0]

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

Using the argument that because something is arbitrary it shouldn't be enforced is flawed as basically everything is a matter of degrees. I agree that it's difficult to set a limit or to legislate around this area, but I do not agree that this difficulty should be a reason to have no legislation at all. Serious neglect of a child by their parent should call for government action, whether in the form of mandatory parenting classes or taking the child into social care. It isn't good enough to argue that it's the parents choice to raise their child however they want. I agree that it is indeed reasonable for the parent to bring their child up in all manner of ways, but in my opinion there is a line, however fuzzy and grey it may be.

[Loismustdie 0]

Are you really that effing stupid to compare cigarrette to an online poker forum? And if not, are you really that stupid to argue that companies who sell life threatening products to their customers should not be made to tell their customers before they buy?

Lol---- they already are!!! That includes food products, nutritional value charts are available everywhere, for everything. It's precisely the same thing- people know the risk of addiction. If I pissed my money away over a ten year period, does the site owe me anything? Is it Daniels fault? Hell, no, and this is paramount, personal choice and then owning that choice is everything, no matter what the outcome is. It's everything.

[hblask 1]

Are you really that effing stupid to compare cigarrette to an online poker forum?

The people who think that they know what is best for other people use the same argument for both: we need to protect these poor helpless people from their own stupidity.(Poker/smoking/fast food) is obviously bad for (other) people, so we need to prevent (other) people from doing the thing that they enjoy.What? Never mind what I enjoy, that's none of your business.

[Loismustdie 0]

Using the argument that because something is arbitrary it shouldn't be enforced is flawed as basically everything is a matter of degrees. I agree that it's difficult to set a limit or to legislate around this area, but I do not agree that this difficulty should be a reason to have no legislation at all. Serious neglect of a child by their parent should call for government action, whether in the form of mandatory parenting classes or taking the child into social care. It isn't good enough to argue that it's the parents choice to raise their child however they want. I agree that it is indeed reasonable for the parent to bring their child up in all manner of ways, but in my opinion there is a line, however fuzzy and grey it may be.

It's already legislated, by each establishment being required to post or have pamphlets on nutritional value. The next step is control by choosing for me, and that's where I draw the line. It's not your choice. It's not your kid.

[Sheiky 0]

Lol---- they already are!!! That includes food products, nutritional value charts are available everywhere, for everything. It's precisely the same thing- people know the risk of addiction. If I pissed my money away over a ten year period, does the site owe me anything? Is it Daniels fault? Hell, no, and this is paramount, personal choice and then owning that choice is everything, no matter what the outcome is. It's everything.

That again is a totally different thing to tobacco companies deliberately hiding that their product caused cancer. Back then people did not know the risks.

[Sheiky 0]

The people who think that they know what is best for other people use the same argument for both: we need to protect these poor helpless people from their own stupidity.(Poker/smoking/fast food) is obviously bad for (other) people, so we need to prevent (other) people from doing the thing that they enjoy.What? Never mind what I enjoy, that's none of your business.

I'm talking about when cigarettes were first produced and did not come with health warnings.

[irishguy 14]

This is pretty absurd. No one should have the right to tell me how much is too much to feed my kidsJust like no one should tell me how much I must feed my kids. Maybe my kids metabolism is set in a way that he only needs one meal a day.No one should make me make my kids wear protective gear while biking or playing sports. I believe I taught him well enough that he won't fall and besides if he does the odd bump on the head will only toughen it up.I am completely okay with my kids drinking and smoking under my roof as I'm going to monitor it. It shouldn't be the governments job to police my child in my own home. If I think they are ready to drink at thirteen they are.While we are at it there shouldn't be limits to how I discipline my kid. If I think the odd smack to the back of the head is a solid deterrent what business is it off any one elses? Freedom of choice should mean something.

[Loismustdie 0]

That again is a totally different thing to tobacco companies deliberately hiding that their product caused cancer. Back then people did not know the risks.

They do now, for literally every product made in the U.S. companies work extensively to label risk. So, information is available, now leave people be. Literally, there is no other possible way that does not impeach on freedom. If you controlled happy meals, say you could get one twice a month, whats to stop me from making my own? What next, mandatory weigh ins for kids? Do you have any idea the society you are advocating? If this came to war I would have to take up arms and kill you, and I am not kidding in any way, shape or form. This is basic freedom we are talking about, rudimentary, this should not even be a debate. It's scary that it is.

[hblask 1]

I'm talking about when cigarettes were first produced and did not come with health warnings.

They were called "cancer sticks" as early as the late 1800s. The poor-victim-didn't-know thing is a legal fiction invented by lawyers to try to get money from the system. I defy you to find a single person alive today that did NOT know cigarettes are dangerous. And I mean, really didn't know, not just someone willing to say they didn't know for a million dollars or to justify their difficulty in quitting.

[Sheiky 0]

This is pretty absurd. No one should have the right to tell me how much is too much to feed my kidsJust like no one should tell me how much I must feed my kids. Maybe my kids metabolism is set in a way that he only needs one meal a day.No one should make me make my kids wear protective gear while biking or playing sports. I believe I taught him well enough that he won't fall and besides if he does the odd bump on the head will only toughen it up.I am completely okay with my kids drinking and smoking under my roof as I'm going to monitor it. Its shouldn't be the governments job to police my child in my own home. If I think they are ready to drink at thirteen they are.While we are at it there shouldn't be limits to how I discipline my kid. If I think the odd smack to the back of the head is a solid deterrent what business is it off any one elses? Freedom of choice should mean something.

What about your child's freedom of choice to not get hit over the head?

[Loismustdie 0]

This is pretty absurd. No one should have the right to tell me how much is too much to feed my kidsJust like no one should tell me how much I must feed my kids. Maybe my kids metabolism is set in a way that he only needs one meal a day.No one should make me make my kids wear protective gear while biking or playing sports. I believe I taught him well enough that he won't fall and besides if he does the odd bump on the head will only toughen it up.I am completely okay with my kids drinking and smoking under my roof as I'm going to monitor it. It shouldn't be the governments job to police my child in my own home. If I think they are ready to drink at thirteen they are.While we are at it there shouldn't be limits to how I discipline my kid. If I think the odd smack to the back of the head is a solid deterrent what business is it off any one elses? Freedom of choice should mean something.

The first sentence is why I am getting so worked, up this whole discussion is absolutely absurd, and the willingness to be ignorant to the type of road this goes down makes me a little sick inside, because people that think like this exist in numbers that are way to large.

[irishguy 14]

What about your child's freedom of choice to not get hit over the head?

I'm older my freedom of choice counts for much more then his.

[Sheiky 0]

They do now, for literally every product made in the U.S. companies work extensively to label risk. So, information is available, now leave people be. Literally, there is no other possible way that does not impeach on freedom. If you controlled happy meals, say you could get one twice a month, whats to stop me from making my own? What next, mandatory weigh ins for kids? Do you have any idea the society you are advocating? If this came to war I would have to take up arms and kill you, and I am not kidding in any way, shape or form. This is basic freedom we are talking about, rudimentary, this should not even be a debate. It's scary that it is.

Why are you continuing as if I was arguing against something I expressed that I wasn't? Stop acting as if I'm arguing for destroying everyone's freedom, i'm not, in any way.

They were called "cancer sticks" as early as the late 1800s. The poor-victim-didn't-know thing is a legal fiction invented by lawyers to try to get money from the system. I defy you to find a single person alive today that did NOT know cigarettes are dangerous. And I mean, really didn't know, not just someone willing to say they didn't know for a million dollars or to justify their difficulty in quitting.

Possibly because they all died of cancer?

[Sheiky 0]

I'm older my freedom of choice counts for much more then his.

I hope this is a joke

[Loismustdie 0]

What about your child's freedom of choice to not get hit over the head?

If he wants to do something about it, he will. Unless he knows I rule his little world, then he will take his head smack like a good boy and do as he's told.

[hblask 1]

I'm older my freedom of choice counts for much more then his.

You are not very good at this "post the opposite to show how silly it is" thing. Fail.

[Sheiky 0]

If he wants to do something about it, he will. Unless he knows I rule his little world, then he will take his head smack like a good boy and do as he's told.

Again, i'm hoping this is a joke.

[hblask 1]

Possibly because they all died of cancer?

That's it? That's your argument? That everyone who thought smoking was safe died of cancer? LOL.

[Loismustdie 0]

Why are you continuing as if I was arguing against something I expressed that I wasn't? Stop acting as if I'm arguing for destroying everyone's freedom, i'm not, in any way. Possibly because they all died of cancer?

I really think that you believe this, but the truth is the only way for you to do anything about this is to infringe on someone else rights, it's the absolute only way. You are expressing all kinds of things that I don't think you have any clue where it leads to, if you listened to what I am saying you might see that.