Feeding kids fattening fast foods is child abuse

[Julius Seeker]

There is actually a court in the UK now which is arguing that very thing. Of course, this argument isn't new, not even to this board. Feeding children fast food and other unhealthy and disgusting foods to the point where they become fat should be considered child abuse based on the reasoning that it puts their health at risk.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/27/ob ... index.html

I do really hope that this spreads to Canada, I find it absolutely disgusting to see fat parents raising their kids to be just as fat. It is blatant abuse and causes a huge unecessary stress on the health system.

On top of this I feel that many schools, within my current province at least, do not have enough fitness and health programs. It is easy to see the difference from school to school; those which put heavy emphasis on physical education and health have far fewer fatties than those which do not.

[Zeus]

This is a classic case of the government overstepping its boundaries. You can't protect people from their own idiocy

[Julius Seeker]

I completely disagree, fattening up kids like that IS in fact child abuse. If parents are allowed to treat their children this way, why not bring back beatings? Why not bring back child labour? There are many different ways a child can be abused, and fattening them up (thus making them grossly unhealthy), is certainly a very large and growing problem in the western world today. I would completely support any court decisions to remove children from a home which failed to feed them a healthy diet.

Two major things which parents are supposed to be able to do for their children is cloth them properly and feed them properly; this obviously is beginning to become a problem.

[Julius Seeker]

I completely disagree, fattening up kids like that IS in fact child abuse. If parents are allowed to treat their children this way, why not bring back beatings? Why not bring back child labour? There are many different ways a child can be abused, and fattening them up (thus making them grossly unhealthy), is certainly a very large and growing problem in the western world today. I would completely support any court decisions to remove children from a home which failed to feed them a healthy diet.

Two major things which parents are supposed to be able to do for their children is cloth them properly and feed them properly; this obviously is beginning to become a problem.

[Lox]

I have no issue with these kinds of laws as long as they are put in place in a way that they won't punish the random parent for taking their kids to McDonald's once in a while. The laws would need to be aimed more towards the parents who raise their kids on unhealthy foods.

I agree that a parent who feeds their kids this kind of food to the point where it negatively affects their child's health are abusing the child. I don't see this as the government trying to protect people from their own idiocy because this is about protecting children. I think there should be laws to protect a child from his parent's idiocy. (Note: I don't think video game laws apply here because there isn't enough evidence to prove that video games negatively affect a child).

The toughest thing about putting a law like this in place is finding the right set of guidelines that will protect those who need it without punishing those who don't.

[Julius Seeker]

I have no issue with these kinds of laws as long as they are put in place in a way that they won't punish the random parent for taking their kids to McDonald's once in a while. The laws would need to be aimed more towards the parents who raise their kids on unhealthy foods.

I agree that a parent who feeds their kids this kind of food to the point where it negatively affects their child's health are abusing the child. I don't see this as the government trying to protect people from their own idiocy because this is about protecting children. I think there should be laws to protect a child from his parent's idiocy. (Note: I don't think video game laws apply here because there isn't enough evidence to prove that video games negatively affect a child).

The toughest thing about putting a law like this in place is finding the right set of guidelines that will protect those who need it without punishing those who don't.

I think that the courts in combination with child services would be fairly sufficient. In certain areas of my province I feel this is a very large issue.

[Imakeholesinu]

You cannot stop people from eating, nor can there be or will there ever be legislation that stops people from eating. Yes you can ban certain substances that go into what people eat (IE Trans Fat Oils) but you cannot tell people what the can and cannot eat as far as legal restaurants go.

This type of legislation makes me question why the fuck are we paying our government money when there are a lot of other bigger national issues. It goes to show how out of touch governments really are that they are avoiding larger issues (War, Alternative Fuels etc etc ) and going for shit that people need to be doing to police themselves. This type of Micro-management will kill us in the future.

[kali o.]

It's a dumb law, I can't see it making it through. There is a big difference between being a "bad" parent and being an "abusive" one - the former being subjective and the latter being defined by accepted social norms.

There is no way "fatty foods" falls under abuse, and even if it did you'd need a wide variety factors to be proven to justify legitimate charges on an idividual basis (ruling out genetics and poverty while showing longterm health problems and abusive intent).

Really, really dumb.

[bovine]

I agree with Kali, it's just a subversive government attempt that marginalizes and obscures the real causes of of problems like poverty. Poor kids aren't skinny, they're fat because they eat too many sugar and fat laced cheap foods instead of delicious, nutritious, and expensive fruits and vegetables. Not a lot of poor vegan families out there.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

...it's just a subversive government attempt that marginalizes and obscures the real causes of of problems like poverty.

Yep.

It's a dumb law, I can't see it making it through. There is a big difference between being a "bad" parent and being an "abusive" one - the former being subjective and the latter being defined by accepted social norms.

Yep.

I would completely support any court decisions to remove children from a home which failed to feed them a healthy diet.

This is a stupid thing to say.

[Tessian]

I'm all for making sure kids eat healthy...but I don't think you can really quantify it as abuse.

Like bovine said, there are many more factors at stake when you're talking about feeding a family.

Now if you want to start fining schools for not doing their part I'm all for that...but there are much bigger issues we need to worry about than this.

[Nev]

If a parent feeds his/her kid three Quarter Pounders a day and the kid dies at 17 of a heart attack, you might have a case for child abuse. But really, it's not like you eat one Quarter Pounder and blow up like Shamu. Shit takes a long time to get going. And kids are perfectly capable of learning to exercise on their own...

Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money and patience to me. But that's just me.

[Julius Seeker]

Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money and patience to me. But that's just me.

Unless the US adopts Public Health care, I agree with you from a purely economic standpoint. In countries such as mine and the UK where we value it greatly it is a much larger waste of taxpayer money to allow this shit to go on (the growing fat rate among kids that is). From a moral standpoint, I don't think a kid should be subjected to fattening, I think children deserve to be brought up healthy.

I also disagree on the point that fattening foods are cheaper. Those packaged foods, the fast foods, the chickens, the pizzas, the ice cream, and stuff that fat people are eating are more expensive than food that can be considered healthy. If you look back to poorer time periods, I am sure you will find that the obesity rate was considerably lower than it is now.

Parents who feed their children enough fattening foods to fatten them up are harming their children, putting stress on our health system just like they are putting stress on their childrens heart muscle. Neglect is a form of abuse, and fattening up kids is neglecting their health.

I do agree with the point on schools, I feel that the public school systems need to put a heavier emphasis on health and physical education.

On this not being a serious problem? Like the issue that the government seems to focus so much on "gay marriage" is of any relevance in comparison? It is an incredibly serious problem as it is greatly effecting the population in a massive way. Due to the fatness of this upcoming generation from how they have been fed, for the first time in history analysts (in North America) are predicting a shorter average lifespan for the coming generation than the generation before them; I really think that is saying something.

But one more question comes up: what do you people, who disagree with government action against fattening kids up, feel about smoking laws? Laws in place to prevent minors from smoking?

[bovine]

From a moral standpoint, I don't think a kid should be subjected to fattening, I think children deserve to be brought up healthy.

I know a certain woman in a house made of candy that might disagree with you on that one.

[Nev]

I'm not really in favor of setting precedents for the government to intercede in private lives like this. It takes up taxpayer time and money and sets up an abusable system.

Much as I hate to sound like an ass, at least the kid in the picture is fat and happy, and he never, ever has to worry about dying of starvation from a stuck elevator. I kinda think you're nuts for making a big deal out of this, Seek.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

Unless the US adopts Public Health care, I agree with you from a purely economic standpoint. In countries such as mine and the UK where we value it greatly it is a much larger waste of taxpayer money to allow this shit to go on (the growing fat rate among kids that is).

Numbers, please. What does this childhood obesity epidemic* actually cost a health system? How are you measuring those costs? How does that cost compare with the cost of, say, state care of children "abused" through malnutrition? What kind of adults do these obese children grow into - what kind of value do they bring to a country? And conversely, what kind of adults do state-raised children grow up into?

What is the cost of just the process alone of removing a child from their family? What kind of load does that add on social workers, courts, and administrators?

I also disagree on the point that fattening foods are cheaper. Those packaged foods, the fast foods, the chickens, the pizzas, the ice cream, and stuff that fat people are eating are more expensive than food that can be considered healthy.

You're wrong; sorry. Packaged foods are cheaper and - this is probably more important - more accessible than fresh foods. This is because packaged foods are cheaper to produce, transport, store and sell than fresh foods.

If you look back to poorer time periods, I am sure you will find that the obesity rate was considerably lower than it is now.

Yes, because packaged foods are cheaper now than they were. If you look at the poor in Africa, they're generally not going to be obese because the least expensive foods available in the west are not available there.

Parents who feed their children enough fattening foods to fatten them up are harming their children, putting stress on our health system just like they are putting stress on their childrens heart muscle. Neglect is a form of abuse, and fattening up kids is neglecting their health.

The working poor - in the USA, at least - do not have the time or money to feed their children well. It's not exclusively for laziness, as you're intimating.

Due to the fatness of this upcoming generation from how they have been fed, for the first time in history analysts (in North America) are predicting a shorter average lifespan for the coming generation than the generation before them; I really think that is saying something.

Reference, please. The figures I've seen have shown no such drop in life expectancy. Even with this "epidemic" of obesity we are living longer than we have done in history.

* Define obesity. Do we measure it by total body fat? BMI? The definitions shift constantly. In Australia, at least, part of the reason for the increasing percentages of obesity is that the characteristics defining obesity are getting tighter: for example, where we would now consider a person with a BMI of between 30 and 40 obese, that person would have been considered overweight in 1970.

Also, define the causes of obesity. Overeating? Poor nutritional value of the food being eaten? What if the food is being eaten during school - would the child be seized then? What if the child had a genetic predisposition to being overweight? What if the child is not getting enough sleep? How do you propose the government verify that every obese child is obese through poor nutrition for which the parent is entirely responsible?

[Julius Seeker]

I'm not really in favor of setting precedents for the government to intercede in private lives like this. It takes up taxpayer time and money and sets up an abusable system.

Much as I hate to sound like an ass, at least the kid in the picture is fat and happy, and he never, ever has to worry about dying of starvation from a stuck elevator. I kinda think you're nuts for making a big deal out of this, Seek.

So you are in favour of allowing parents the ability to bring their kids up poorly? What do you feel about beatings and other such abuses?

Though I would like to hear your thoughts on the anti-smoking campaign towards children over the years; I feel there are a lot of parallels.

Also, do you know that the child is happy and not just smiling for that particular picture? If you would like, I can easily pick out A LOT of examples of kids brought up fat who are miserable for being fat. Though I don't think I have to do that, it is quite apparent.

Numbers, please. What does this childhood obesity epidemic* actually cost a health system? How are you measuring those costs? How does that cost compare with the cost of, say, state care of children "abused" through malnutrition? What kind of adults do these obese children grow into - what kind of value do they bring to a country? And conversely, what kind of adults do state-raised children grow up into?

What is the cost of just the process alone of removing a child from their family? What kind of load does that add on social workers, courts, and administrators?

http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/s1587390.htm

Obesity costs Australia alone more than 11 (eleven) billion dollars per year. The anti-obesity school programs the government has put down so far only costs 116 million.

You're wrong; sorry. Packaged foods are cheaper and - this is probably more important - more accessible than fresh foods. This is because packaged foods are cheaper to produce, transport, store and sell than fresh foods.

Are you sure? The really fattening packaged foods such as breaded hotdogs, packaged pasteries, potato chips, and such like that are more expensive than healthier alternatives such as frozen veggies (even fresh veggies, it costs less than a dollar for a bunch of fresh carrots or bananas). What of fast food?

Yes, because packaged foods are cheaper now than they were. If you look at the poor in Africa, they're generally not going to be obese because the least expensive foods available in the west are not available there.

The poor in Africa are skinny because they're starving. That is an entirely different and more severe problem right now; it might be related to over-population, it might be related to a corruption of the wealthy, I am not going to tackle this right now.

The working poor - in the USA, at least - do not have the time or money to feed their children well. It's not exclusively for laziness, as you're intimating.

Neglect is a form of child abuse, whatever the reasons for it might be. What demograph do you think social services seizes by far most of their children from? For what reasons?

Reference, please. The figures I've seen have shown no such drop in life expectancy. Even with this "epidemic" of obesity we are living longer than we have done in history.

Sorry, I should have posted a link to this before:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7209499 "U.S. life expectancy will fall dramatically in coming years because of obesity,"

Define obesity. Do we measure it by total body fat? BMI? The definitions shift constantly. In Australia, at least, part of the reason for the increasing percentages of obesity is that the characteristics defining obesity are getting tighter: for example, where we would now consider a person with a BMI of between 30 and 40 obese, that person would have been considered overweight in 1970.

Also, define the causes of obesity. Overeating? Poor nutritional value of the food being eaten? What if the food is being eaten during school - would the child be seized then? What if the child had a genetic predisposition to being overweight? What if the child is not getting enough sleep? How do you propose the government verify that every obese child is obese through poor nutrition for which the parent is entirely responsible?

Obesity is caused by a combination of poor eating and poor excersize.

Obviously if a child was genetically overweight due to glandular problems they wouldn't be classified as being fattened up by their parents. That would be a legit disability just like any other legit disability, not a forced one.

[Nev]

That kid is perfectly capable of going and running some laps any time he feels like getting less fat. But it is fun to watch you lose your mind over this.

As far as anti-smoking campaigns go, I smoke the occasional tobacco cigarette. I'm more angry that Big Tobacco doesn't take care of their fields and has a tendency to hide incriminating evidence, but I completely support the right of cigarettes to be sold in the U.S. Do I think ad campaigns for cigarettes should be targeted towards adults instead of kids? Absolutely. But I also believe in the ability of most people to overcome their addictions in time. And if they can't? I refuse to take responsibility for someone else's inability to rein in the worst parts of themselves - which isn't to say I don't care, but I don't feel I should have my freedoms curtailed because someone else can't handle their shit. Perhaps it's a discompassionate philosophy, but I think anything else sets a dangerous precedent that the rest of the populace is responsible for someone's substance abuse problem.

I'm not saying that people with severe addiction issues don't need all the help they can get, but it should be freely given through either non-governmental solutions or else some sort of social program that doesn't impose censorship or unfair practices on those people who *do* use tobacco (or fast food, or whatever the hell else you want to talk about) responsibly. Believe it or not, they are out there, and probably getting mighty sick at this point of all the cigarette addicts who are moralizing out of holes in their necks. I feel bad about the holes in the necks, but I didn't shove *way, way* too many cigs into their mouths, far past rationality or reason.

I'll be honest, I don't really like your attitudes on government. I love a bit of socialism, but you take it too far. You act like one of the right attitudes towards government is to use it to protect people from themselves, which I think is a dangerous, slippery, and costly road to go down. I think we'd *all* do better to start focusing on how *people* can protect people from themselves, because the government does a shitty job of it, usually.

And if it will get you to shut up and get off your wild-eyed tirade, sure, I'm for childhood beatings. Whatever.

As usual, you've set out with an agenda and are ready to try to entice people into thinking the way you do, which, again as usual, has managed to annoy the shit out of me.

I was a fat kid. I still struggle with the occasional weight issue as an adult. Would I love to have developed healthy exercise habits early on in my life? Sure, but I'm getting there. Do I want you legislating my eating
habits? FECK no.

You need to learn to live and let live a bit, man. We're all happy for your high levels of fitness and dedication to health, but as far as your argument goes, your agenda is ridiculously transparent, and it just gets old, man. No one here particularly wants to think the way you do, as far as I can tell.

[kali o.]

So you are in favour of allowing parents the ability to bring their kids up poorly?

"Poorly" is a subjective term here and built around a fairly shakey assertion by you - an undefined level of obesity is caused by diet in the home with the intention of prosecutable abuse. It's just not a level-headed position, no matter how you spin it.

The poor in Africa are skinny because they're starving. That is an entirely different and more severe problem right now; it might be related to over-population, it might be related to a corruption of the wealthy, I am not going to tackle this right now.

Actually, funny thing that. In Africa there is rising concern recently about obesity thanks to the explosion of Fast Food outlets over the last 10 years - and you have the same arguement (the poorer city pop can actually afford to feed their families now)

Obesity is caused by a combination of poor eating and poor excersize.

I'll add to that. Obesity is caused by a combination of poor nutrition, low physical activity, overeating, media/social influences, convienent access to poor nutrition choices (school, local, etc), mental health complications (low self esteem, etc), genetics, lack of proper education, poverty, time restraints (single parents and dual income earners) and more.

You oversimplify. Issues such as this are definately not the domain of goverment regulation, simply because of the murkiness involved in enforcement and definition.

Lemme put it to you this way - physical activity is just as big a part of obesity as diet. Should the government enforce parents must keep all children in at least one after school sport and to not do so consitutes *abuse*? Nevermind that the child may refuse to comply or the parents may not have the money for supplies/transportation? How about videogames and TV? Clearly little to no educational or physical content
there...should the government make it a crime if parents give their children access to these forms of entertainment?

[Anarky]

The question I have is how the hell would you police something like this? If the kid is 30 pounds overweight you fine the parents?

There are laws setup to protect people from their own stupidity, seat belt laws are the 1st to come to mind.

I just wish k-12 schools would stop taking funding from fucking Coke and Pepsi, that shit is rediculous.

[Nev]

The question I have is how the hell would you police something like this? If the kid is 30 pounds overweight you fine the parents?

There are laws setup to protect people from their own stupidity, seat belt laws are the 1st to come to mind.

I just wish k-12 schools would stop taking funding from fucking Coke and Pepsi, that shit is rediculous.

(applause)

Just so you all know, I'm all for seat belt laws, because law enforcement officials don't make a huge deal out of enforcing it, and because the general tendency of people to wear seatbelts probably does result in a huge public health and welfare gain. Though technically it's probably some sort of violation of civil liberty, I just don't think it's a big deal. If you want to ride around without a seat belt, just go off-road and take that risk on your own time and dime...don't do it in a crowded traffic situation where issues around your personal safety might really impact someone else's life.

But eating habits are different, to me. I think a person should be able to fundamentally decide what goes into their own body, and the idea of having the government legislate that in any way really scares me, because that shit is kind of a slippery slope.

There will be people who will use their civil liberties to get fat and lazy, but to me, when the government gets moralizing about how and when it "helps" people - and does so against their will - that's when socialism crosses over into fascist tendencies. Which, to me, has a tendency to reduce and diminish people's potential, as opposed to the other way around. And I mean that in the actual political sense of the word - I'm not trying to get this thread Godwinned. I just don't agree with telling other people what to do as a philosophy (which I would say is an essential part of historical fascism)...there are those who do. Just trying to explain why my feelings on this are so vehement.

[Sephy]

Are you sure? The really fattening packaged foods such as breaded hotdogs, packaged pasteries, potato chips, and such like that are more expensive than healthier alternatives such as frozen veggies (even fresh veggies, it costs less than a dollar for a bunch of fresh carrots or bananas). What of fast food?

Not going to step into this terrain..but no they're not. You can get a pack of 8 hot dogs for 99 cents or less. You can get huge things of pastries for a buck. A giant bag of potato chips for 2.50 Frozen veggies can be this cheap, but that's just veggies. Not a full balanced meal with lean protein and some good carbs as well. You can buy microwave burritos for like 40 cents a pop. It is much, MUCH cheaper (and easier) to eat this stuff than all fresh, healthy stuff. It makes sense for it to be this way as well - the bad stuff is full of preservatives and doesn't need to be consumed quickly, so it costs less.

BTW, bananas are easily like 3 bucks a bunch here. Wherever you're getting veggies and fruit is rather cheap.

[Tessian]

Yeah Seek you're full of shit, no offense...

Prepackaged crappy foods are a Lot cheaper for many reasons. Hell first off I can buy unhealthy foods easier in bulk because it'll keep forever.

Frozen hotdogs bought by the box will last a hell of a lot longer than a lot of bananas, apples, strawberries, etc...

If you're actually able to prove that healthy fruits and vegetables are cheaper than junk food I'd love to know where you're shopping...

One final statement: DOLLAR MENU

[Julius Seeker]

Not going to step into this terrain..but no they're not. You can get a pack of 8 hot dogs for 99 cents or less. You can get huge things of pastries for a buck. A giant bag of potato chips for 2.50 Frozen veggies can be this cheap, but that's just veggies. Not a full balanced meal with lean protein and some good carbs as well. You can buy microwave burritos for like 40 cents a pop. It is much, MUCH cheaper (and easier) to eat this stuff than all fresh, healthy stuff. It makes sense for it to be this way as well - the bad stuff is full of preservatives and doesn't need to be consumed quickly, so it costs less.

BTW, bananas are easily like 3 bucks a bunch here. Wherever you're getting veggies and fruit is rather cheap.

Bananas cost 49 cents per pound here (and this website says that prices in the US are the same at just over a dolllar per kg, which is 2.2 pounds: http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/ ... prices.htm). So either you are getting ripped off solid or those are DAMN big bunches of bananas. 8 breaded hotdogs (pogo-dogs) will cost you more than 5 dollars, the regular hotdogs aren't that bad, the worst thing about them is the additives. It's also people feeding their kids large amounts of fast food that is the major problem.

Either way, this study seems to indicate the opposite of what people here are claiming, that most of the fat people are poor, according to these studies, that is not the case at all. A lot has to be blamed on parents feeding their kids tons of fast food: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/ ... 1325.shtml
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_ ... 110401.asp

Do you feel that parents should be able to give their kids cigarettes? How about removing all the laws which prevent children from buying cigarettes? If not, then why fast food? In moderation fast food will not have great adverse effects on a person, but the same deal goes with smoking.

"Recently, the U.S. Surgeon General estimated obesity costs the American economy more than $117 billion every year" http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... news854709



On the subject of parents fattening their kids up on fast food and garbage foods. I think the most important step would be awareness, get it out that this is wrong, that it IS abuse to raise a child that way. They need to know exactly what they are doing to their children. In extreme cases such as the one with the 200 pound 8 year old kid, I certainly feel that those kids should be removed from their homes and put in a better home, they already do this to kids who are beaten and neglected in other ways.

[Nev]

Again, Seek, your agenda is transparent beyond belief.

If you really want to do something about this shit, write your representative. Get involved with a group trying to improve public nutrition - they're out there. Don't post here.

Are you really doing anything to help by preaching at a bunch of people on the internet who have no connection to this field and probably won't have a desire to debate this if they did? I haven't seen one "Gosh, Seek, you're right" response to this thread yet. (Actually, I'm not sure I've ever seen that response to any of your threads here, ever.)

It seems like you think no one gives your opinions a chance, so you have to keep proselytizing them. This is untrue. I give your opinions the same chance as I do anyone else's on here, but the thing is, I generally disagree with most of them. I then tell you why, and am generally treated to a rephrasing of your argument, as if somehow I'll "catch on" or something. I find it kind of insulting a bit - it's as if you don't accept people who disagree with you as valid, as if the words I say don't matter.

Again, if you really care about this, go make a difference somewhere where people are actually making a difference about this. I love this board, but this is not any kind of effective outlet for social causework. We are not about to go out and bust our butts against childhood obesity. Personally, I feel climate change is a much bigger problem, and if I had any spare time in between trying to figure out how I'm going to get a game out the door and trying to help my roommate not go to jail or get kicked out of our apartment, I'd be working at that.

As far as I'm concerned, the fat kids can eat until their livers liquefy, at least until we can be pretty sure the world won't be covered with burning sulfuric acid storms in a few hundred years or so. There have been fat kids before, and will be again. To me, not that tragic in the larger context right now. But the point is that even if I agreed with you 100%, what the shit does that really accomplish? It doesn't get these kids to start eating healthier - and even if I thought I could do anything, my plate is completely full right now, I have no time to volunteer on something like this. If you really, really think this is a problem, go start working on solving it.

Lead by example, not by preaching. Trying to proselytize so hard for a cause like that, a really pretty noble cause, *on here*, is almost an affront to the idea of principle, in my opinion anyway - because it's just arguing on the internet. Waste of time.

You really give a shit, go do something. Quit moralizing all over us and go actually make a fucking difference.

Just my two cents.

[Julius Seeker]

Nev, according to that logic, almost everything we do here at the Shrine is a waste of time; which might be true, but then it is one of my favourite wastes of time =)

The main reason we come here is an exchange of ideas, and it never had to do with whether or not you in particular were interested in the subject, or anyone else for that matter. Whether climate change is a more important issue or not is not relevant, as it does not automatically disqualify all discussions on everything else. The bottom line is, in the history of this board we have had A LOT of political discussion, a lot of religious discussion, and a lot of discussion on plenty of other subjects that are huge, but we are not accomplishing anything in any government by discussing them. It was never my purpose, nor the purpose of anyone else to change anything, just to express their opinions on matters, and then all the sub-matters that come up. It is not really relevant whether people here disagree or not, it never has been.

On a side note, isn't it you who was getting very very VERY angry over hijacking of threads? This post of yours is not on topic. I don't really care, I just thought I would note that for you.

On another side note: first, everything you (and everyone) have ever posted here can be argued as being a waste of time, so that point is not relevant; second, I don't automatically know what you are interested in, you got into this debate, and no one told you that you HAD to join it if you were not really interested in it. No offense, but I see your last post as a very poor escape attempt, similar to what I have seen you make in a lot of other debates. So I am still going to ask you these questions:

What about government laws keeping minors away from cigarettes along with all the educational programs aimed at children? Do you feel that is a waste of money and time? How would you feel about a parent who got their kid smoking? There are a lot of parallels with this situation.

[Nev]

Touche.

You win this round, Mr. Bond. But I'll be back! (When I actually think of a real response to your very admittedly well-phrased last argument.)

[Oracle]

If any government action was taken on something like this, it would have to be something like:

Johnny went in for a medical check-up today. The doctor said he is 50 lbs overweight, has high cholesterol, and is at risk for heart failure. This would then be reported to some agency (social services?) for further investigation. Honestly, if a kid goes to a doctor and the kid is deemed to be in serious risk of health failure, something should be done by SOMEONE if the parents aren't up to the task. I DO believe it is a form of abuse, but we all know how good governments are at handling ANYTHING in the case of child abuse (that kid is abused, so let's take him away from his parents and put him in an abusive foster home!).

I really, REALLY agree with your point, Seek: feeding your child food to a point that puts their health at serious risk *IS* abuse. I just don't think there is a competent system at work that could remedy the problem.

[Julius Seeker]

Touche.

You win this round, Mr. Bond. But I'll be back! (When I actually think of a real response to your very admittedly well-phrased last argument.)

Speaking of Bond: http://www.consumptionjunction.com/cont ... e=1&Page=1 Homeless Bond =P

[Zeus]

If any government action was taken on something like this, it would have to be something like:

Johnny went in for a medical check-up today. The doctor said he is 50 lbs overweight, has high cholesterol, and is at risk for heart failure. This would then be reported to some agency (social services?) for further investigation. Honestly, if a kid goes to a doctor and the kid is deemed to be in serious risk of health failure, something should be done by SOMEONE if the parents aren't up to the task. I DO believe it is a form of abuse, but we all know how good governments are at handling ANYTHING in the case of child abuse (that kid is abused, so let's take him away from his parents and put him in an abusive foster home!).

I really, REALLY agree with your point, Seek: feeding your child food to a point that puts their health at serious risk *IS* abuse. I just don't think there is a competent system at work that could remedy the problem.

You would first have to come up with a benchmark on what is considered "abusive". That's no easy task considering we can't universally decide what the fuck the speed limit is (anyone who tells me the speed limit on the 401 is 100km is fucking crazy)

[Eric]

I could see it now, kids would forcibley eat and eat and eat to get fat and cry abuse at their parents who made them mad. Then they can go out and commit crime and when the police ask them why, it's because their parents abuse them. lol.

[Zeus]

I could see it now, kids would forcibley eat and eat and eat to get fat and cry abuse at their parents who made them mad. Then they can go out and commit crime and when the police ask them why, it's because their parents abuse them. lol.

If kids can make up stories about their parents/step-parents abusing them to get them in trouble with Children's Aid to get attention you can bet this is something a lot of them will try.

And this is why you can't have a law like this. The potential for abuse of the law (by far more than the children; tons of people have reasons to persucute whenever possible) far outweighs any benefits this law might bring.