Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Should parents of children who are obese be considered to be abusive? I'm not talking about kids who are simply overweight, but truly 'on the road to type 2 Diabetes by the time they're 15' obese. This is an entirely preventable condition, and is widely held to be one of, if not the highest risk factor to today's (American) society.
Case in point: I was out with my roommate's new GF's family for dinner at a chinese buffet on Sat. I know this is already a very high fat environment, but then the GF's son (aged 9 I believe, about 4'10, and already 150 lbs) comes back to the table with two small slices of cheese pizza, a large bowl of ice cream, a plate of pudding, some pastries and a banana dessert. Of course my roommate and I start giving this kid a hard time about his food choices, neither one of us thinking this could be an acceptable 'meal'. His response is "I can eat what I want." Note that his statement wasn't defensive at all, it was simply a statement of fact. A glance in his mother's direction solicited only a shrug, and the boy ate his fill of sweets and cakes as his 'lunch'. I tried to persuade him to eat a bit healthier at least for this one meal, by pointing out the fat slob of a neckbeard who had set down behind him: "That's going to be you in 5 years.", but all he did was laugh obnoxiously.
IMO this is beyond reprehension, especially since the mother works in the medical industry as a phlebotomist. Her job literally deals with the consequences of her son's dietary habits on a daily basis, yet she can't be bothered to enforce a dietary discipline which even has a chance of instilling some healthy habits into her children.
The result is that we'll have yet another fat slob as a member of society through no fault of his own. We teach our children all manner of things as daily life: Don't take candy from strangers. Don't smoke. Look both ways before crossing the street. There are a lot of reasons for which a neglect or abuse charge can be laid at the parent's feet; Not ensuring your children are inoculated, not keeping them bathed, not educating them, etc. Shouldn't teaching them how to be as unhealthy as possible be another?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/15 04:39:15
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Also, I doubt it has anything with "not having been taught" how to be healthy. Everyone knows how you become fat.
This is purely restricting the child's choice, as it would be for prohibiting the child from doing something else dangerous to himself in spite of warnings (jumping off the roof and hoping he lands in a pile of leaves or whatever).
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
once again, the slippery slope theory rears its ugly head. How long before the government starts arresting people for teaching kids "unhealthy" ideas about eating meat or worshiping god(s), or any other number of things.
It is a shame, but it's the price of living in a free(ish) society. You have to accept that people will make mistakes or you'll destroy the very essence of a country in your attempt to make it a utopia.
Honestly, I let my kids eat relatively whatever they want at a buffet. It is a special occasion we are there in the first place.
Now, at home, my girls have two choices for dinner: Take it or Leave it. If you leave it, you go to be without dinner. At that point, Zelda usually finishes her peas
I am a damaged individual screaming random obscenities into the internet, sorry if I upset you.
"Dig what you dig. Don't take any fool's madness, just dig what you dig."
-Corey Taylor (Not Saying you're a fool )
"You guys are nuttier n fruitbats who just sucked a three week old pineapple." -Frazzled
While I'm not a supporter of "nanny states",I totaly agree with you concerning instilling good eating habits in children.
The situation you described above concerning the childs choice of foods was deplorable,and yes it's his moms fault,this pattern of eating nothing but garbage should have never been alowed.
I know my children would love to sit down and have a lunch of cookies and pie,but as a father I won't allow it,kids will (for the most part) always make choices they "enjoy",it's a parents job to guide them.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
You know it's perplexing to me,in America at least,one needs a license to drive,to fish,to hunt,for most business'...hell you even have to fill out a mile of paper work just to rent a DVD.
But,any two fools with functioning reproductive organs can breed.
As I said,I'm very much against "Big Brother" type laws..but hell,somtimes I wonder if couples shouldn't have to pass some sort of inteligence test in order to be allowed to have offspring.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:once again, the slippery slope theory rears its ugly head. How long before the government starts arresting people for teaching kids "unhealthy" ideas about eating meat or worshiping god(s), or any other number of things.
It is a shame, but it's the price of living in a free(ish) society. You have to accept that people will make mistakes or you'll destroy the very essence of a country in your attempt to make it a utopia.
A quick read through my posts will demonstrate my abhorrence of the 'nanny state', and I know it's a slippery slope, but with new knowledge comes new ideas of what's acceptable, yes? 60-70 years ago it wasn't uncommon for kids aged 12-13 to be smokers, and although it wasn't looked well upon it was acceptable because the the full extent of the health risks weren't known, much like obesity is today. Now I don't think a parent could get away with a shrug of the shoulders if their child says 'I can smoke if I want to.', at least not without serious risk of neglect charges being levied.
This is an issue with proven health risks associated with it, that has been acknowledged by both the the medical community and the political. We know from the tobacco situation that mere education isn't effective in changing society's outlook; punishment is the only thing that truly makes people sit up and take notice. In the case of tobacco, it was easy enough to introduce fines for selling to prohibited possessors, and then perform stings. Just as easy to 'sting' parents when their child comes in for routine physical examinations, or ailments; Doctors already inform the police when children show signs of physical abuse. The advantage this has over the tobacco stings, is that you have measured and quantifiable evidence of the neglect. Even if a parent claims to be ignorant of the causes of their children's obesity the fine(s) could be commuted to classes, much like a lot of first time narcotics violators are sentenced to Narcotics Anonymous sessions.
I'm not saying that I have all the answers, or that the ideas I've postulated are even viable, but I do think that we need a paradigm shift when it comes to how we think of parents who all but deliberately condemn their children to a life of serious health problems.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
once again, the slippery slope theory rears its ugly head. How long before the government starts arresting people for teaching kids "unhealthy" ideas about eating meat or worshiping god(s), or any other number of things.
It is a shame, but it's the price of living in a free(ish) society. You have to accept that people will make mistakes or you'll destroy the very essence of a country in your attempt to make it a utopia.
The only problem being the healthcare issues inherent to chronic ailments like obesity and diabetes are actually a large drain on the financial resources of the american public at large. This probably wouldn't surprise anyone, but the right to "raise your child as you see fit" is something I consider to be pretty self destructive. It's too easy to just squeeze out another criminal or fatkid, and when you lose them because of you poor parenting skills there's no real penalty besides the state having to pay for their food and care rather than the parent. There's no accountability in parenting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/15 02:38:46
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
The issue of government involvement isn't just one of if government should be involved, but what good they might do once involved. In addition to the basic ideas about people being free to choose their own diets, there's also an issue about how much good government might do if it does regulate or tax unhealthy food.
Smoking is far less common now than it was 50 years ago, but I'm not sure much of that is due to taxes (how many people do you know who would smoke if it was cheaper?) and age restrictions (when I was in school any kid who wanted to smoke could get his hands on a packet easily). I think most of it is due to a more informed public - people know smoking will kill you, and over time lifestyle has changed to fit that knowledge. Government has played a really important role in that education campaign and I think a similar approach could by used for unhealthy food - tell people the truth about how bad the effects on your body will be, what food types are the worst, that kind of thing.
Regarding the OP's question point about abuse, I don't think its child abuse or neglect. Not because it isn't serious and harmful to the kid, but because calling it child abuse or neglect lessens those acts - this is not the same thing as shaking your baby or forgetting to feed him for a day while you try and score some drugs. It sits somewhere between bad parenting and neglect, and I'm not sure there's a proper word for it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I don't think its ignorance. Everyone knows that fast food and twinkies are bad for you. The problem is people like food that tastes good, and unhealthy food tends to taste great. Healthy food tastes awful, relatively speaking of course, and so people don't tend to eat it. I mean have any of you ever eaten Kashi?
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think its ignorance. Everyone knows that fast food and twinkies are bad for you. The problem is people like food that tastes good, and unhealthy food tends to taste great. Healthy food tastes awful, relatively speaking of course, and so people don't tend to eat it. I mean have any of you ever eaten Kashi?
Every day, but I'm vain as hell.
I agree with you though, but I'd also add that food that's bad for you tends to be cheaper; forcing the hands of those who have to count every penny. There's also the bit about a psychological need for amusement, and how the absence of money forces people to look for cheap sources of stimuli, like tasty burgers and fries.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
the parents grew up larger, probably slimming down just long enough to find a husband/wife, then re-gained the weight. parents don't tell children to stop eating, because they don't stop themselves, so they would feel hypocritical in doing so.
<cartman voice>
its my life choice, and if you don't tolerate it, i'll be forced to report you....
<!cartman>
Kilkrazy wrote:It is abuse to starve a child. Is it abuse to overfeed it?
It isn't abuse to overfeed it,but that's morally wrong and will cause a lot problems in their life if they continue to eat at such rate.
It is abuse to forcely overfeed it.
Hail to the creeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!baby Ask not the moot a question,for he will give you three answers,all of which will result in a public humiliation.
It is abuse to starve a child. Is it abuse to overfeed it?
According to Peta, force feeding ducks is, so, perhaps? slight differentiation from overfeeding vs. force feeding.
On a personal note, when I was 5-ish, used to never finish my dinner, parents frowned upon me. later, frowned upon me for having seconds. lose-lose. oh well. And these weren't just vegetables, mind you.
At buffets, things are different; it's meant to be a chow-down. in other words, don't take kids more than once a year in my book. unless it's completely unavoidable. Even then, take note of what they're eating, take things back and tell them "it's for your own good. you'll probably thank me in a few years." -- after that, if they start screaming, threaten nothing at all, because you're the parent; they need to wise up and learn that you know what's best. (at least, usually, anyway; no one's perfect)
alot of old parenting books my parents used to read said gak like "let the baby eat as much as he wants, he will know when he's had enough"... like hell I did.
I ate till I vomited my first time I was taken to a buffet. I then went back and ate more food. Food rocks.
the point is, child rearing strategies and tactics are so very debated, that even things like proper nutrition cannot be completely agreed upon (until the child is like 6-8 years old or some such gak) and by then, they are going to school, and eating lunch there, and can get pocket money to buy sweets and things. Alot of the time its out of the parents control, so you can't really blame them.
I remember frequently taking my lunch money I was supposed to spend on hot lunch ($2.00) and buying 4 oatmeal cookies ($.25 each) so I could save the other dollar a day and use it to buy... pokemon cards (hey, they rocked when I was in grade school).
not the greatest start to a healthy diet, but totally outside my parents control, because as far as they knew I was eating school lunches, not straight junk food.
Thing is, if you start using terms like abuse and negligence then you need to be considering what actual convictions of negligence and abuse mean - taking the child away from the parent. That's a really big step and I'm not sure it's the best option for a fat kid.
If you consider terms like 'bad parenting' or even 'dangerously bad parenting', then I think the problem is being addressed in terms that are more likely to lead to solutions. Education, medical access and support for parents is a lot more likely to help.
There are hypothetically instances where a fat kid could be result of abuse (such as the suggested force-feeding of a kid) and in those cases the word should be used. But does anyone think the increase in the number of fat kids out there is a result of psychologically damaged children being strapped down and forcefully fed donuts.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Negligence is, however, also indicative in many cases of ill educated parents. The sensible clip of the two I posted mentioned at the end that doctors step in and took the child to a hospital.
A child doesn't get that way overnight, it takes years of eating to get that size and develop those health problems. It is likely she was fed every time she 'played up' in order to keep her quiet.
So it was abuse but abuse caused by the ignorance of the parents. We are faced, and I saw many cases myself of this, with having to parent the parents, guide them painfully through things most of us consider common sense.
Again, it's a shame passing a test isn't necessary to spawn, it would resolve a great deal of problems.
FITZZ wrote: You know it's perplexing to me,in America at least,one needs a license to drive,to fish,to hunt,for most business'...hell you even have to fill out a mile of paper work just to rent a DVD.
But,any two fools with functioning reproductive organs can breed.
As I said,I'm very much against "Big Brother" type laws..but hell,somtimes I wonder if couples shouldn't have to pass some sort of inteligence test in order to be allowed to have offspring.
Regretably, I totally agree.
Casting darkness, deep inside your mind
Screaming razors, resonating down your spine
Wearing you down, I'll haunt you where you sleep
Vulnerable, I make the guilt sting
Fear of the dark Bathe the world in spite, it keeps you in place
Growing nervous Abused humiliated, naked and ashamed
I will find you My mouth is full of ruin, I breathe it into you
Princess chaos I'll set the world on fire, I'm gunna start with you
sebster wrote:Regarding the OP's question point about abuse, I don't think its child abuse or neglect. Not because it isn't serious and harmful to the kid, but because calling it child abuse or neglect lessens those acts
Why is causing long-term life threatening physical ailments a less deplorable act because it's done with food? If abuse and neglect are measured by their lasting effects on the child, why isn't obesity considered such? 'Conventional' abuse and neglect cause lasting psychological harm, and (usually) temporary physical harm. Is it such a stretch to believe that obesity is just as harmful to a person as depression/ psychological trauma?
When does willful neglect (often labled laziness) become abuse?
Lordhat wrote:...."I can eat what I want." Note that his statement wasn't defensive at all, it was simply a statement of fact. A glance in his mother's direction solicited only a shrug, and the boy ate his fill.... ....the mother works in the medical industry as a phlebotomist. Her job literally deals with the consequences of her son's dietary habits on a daily basis.....
For those wondering, a phlebotomist is somebody who works with blood. In the above case, specifically administering dialysis treatments. To me this can ONLY mean that the neglect of her children is intentional (Her eldest daughter is a fat cow, and spoiled rotten to boot, obviously not used to being denied what she wants); the mother knows full well that diabetes causes renal failure among other health problems, and that a hight fat, high sugar diet causes diabetes. Sure, she's not strapping the boy down and force feeding him, but when one's job is to make sure the dominoes remain upright does one let somebody kick the platform they're on?
I know another woman who deliberately feeds her kids as much fast food as she can, simply so she doesn't have to cook and clean as much. HER 18 year old daughter is tipping the scales at 375-400 lbs, her youngest daughter started menstruating at 8 (menarche has been linked to body fat %), and her son has chronic asthma and other health issues. So tell me, since, as has been posted above, everybody knows how you get fat, when does this stop being "bad parenting"?
Again, when does willful neglect become abuse?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/15 11:45:59
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Lordhat wrote:Sure, she's not strapping the boy down and force feeding him, but when one's job is to make sure the dominoes remain upright does one let somebody kick the platform they're on?
That is quite possibly the best metaphor I've ever heard used.
Well, in this forum at least.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
)
-to many points to bother to count.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
