quote:
When Greenlit says stuff like this, it proves there isn't a God:
I just saw the thread in GBS too.
Actually I spotted this on Digg. 
You know, you could always just put the food where the kid can't reach it. He's a fatass; it's not like he can climb on top of a counter or something.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
How dangerous is dangerous enough to justify federal seizure on the grounds of abuse?
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Robocop:
So are we going to take the kids of parents who allow trans fats, too?How dangerous is dangerous enough to justify federal seizure on the grounds of abuse?
Weighing 3x the average weight of an 8 year old is a pretty good one I think
quote:
An unnamed health official was quoted as telling a newspaper that the family had repeatedly failed to attend appointments with nurses, nutritionists and social workers.
Come on, now.
I've seen kids that look just like that or worse here in the states.I've seen a kid who couldn't have been older than 7 or 8 walking around with his parents and I swear he looked like he was wearing an over-inflated fat-suit. It was like his arms were plump sausages with little hands coming out the ends. It was really sad.
To that end, I'm glad to see the government taking an interest and doing something about it.
When does it STOP being OK to seize a parent's kids? If we can justify federal seizure of this kid based on his weight, how about a kid 50 lbs lighter than him? How about a kid 100 lbs lighter?
quote:
When Maradon! says stuff like this, it proves there isn't a God:
I'm not saying I disagree with this kid's case, I'm saying that this case seriously blurs the line between simple bad parenting and abuse.
No, it doesn't. It's abuse, plain and simple. They are negligent to the point of endangering their child, and furthermore, they are making no effort to improve his situation.
quote:
When does it STOP being OK to seize a parent's kids? If we can justify federal seizure of this kid based on his weight, how about a kid 50 lbs lighter than him? How about a kid 100 lbs lighter?
When the parents are showing an effort to not kill their child, maybe?
quote:
Naimah needs the precioussses:
But you're now likening a parent, who is admittedly poor, to someone that is willfully abusing their child. This is merely a case of incompetence not of malice. Why does the government have the right to say that you are unfit to raise a child when you are not doing any abjectly wrong?
Endangerment does not require intent. If you leave your baby in a hot car by accident, for example. Or letting him play with turpentine, bleach, and drain-o.
This mother has had ample opportunity to address the issue, and is either willfully or otherwise incapable of not killing her child. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 02-27-2007 at 12:46 PM.
Life is full of endangerment. When you start saying that endangerment is bad then it blues the line for the rights of the individual. I should have the right to raise my child as I see fit, as long as I behave in a well defined set of rules. When you start saying, well your kids fat because you don't feed him right you are blurring the line of what is right and wrong and impinging on the rights of the individual.
Some people are shitty parents, that doesn't meant that you and I have the right to decide that they can't be parents.
quote:
Check out the big brains on Naimah:
So anyone that lets their kid ride a bike without a helmet should have their kid taken away? Anyone that takes their kid out shooting should have their kid taken away?
No. Accidents would be the cause of death, not willful neglect. You can ride a bike for years or shoot guns for years and never have a problem, but if you weigh 400 pounds at age 12, you are going to die.
quote:
Life is full of endangerment. When you start saying that endangerment is bad then it blues the line for the rights of the individual. I should have the right to raise my child as I see fit, as long as I behave in a well defined set of rules. When you start saying, well your kids fat because you don't feed him right you are blurring the line of what is right and wrong and impinging on the rights of the individual.
I don't think you understand the severity of the situation. The average weight for a 8 year old boy is between 58 and 65 pounds. This child weighs between 3 and 4 times how much he should. He is likely around 80% body fat. He is not simply fat. The child is in a dire situation.
Let's flip the situation. If his parents refused to feed him and he weighed 20 pounds, would you be OK with that? I mean, as long as they followed a "well defined set of rules"?
quote:
Some people are shitty parents, that doesn't meant that you and I have the right to decide that they can't be parents.
Shitty parents do not kill their kids, they just raise them wrong. This kid is going to die, and he's going to die 50 years sooner than he should. His parents are not just "shitty", they are harming him or allowing him to harm himself on a daily basis, in a way that is not by any stretch of the imagination trivial. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 02-27-2007 at 12:56 PM.
If I'm not beating my child or making it suck my dick the government should have no say. How an individual decides to raise their own should be a private matter. If the government wants to deny services unless she takes action in some fashion fine, don't have a problem with that, but the government coming in and stealing her child away because they deem her actions to endanger the child is crossing a line.
Edit: Yes, this is different from any type of activity that simply increases this child's risk of developing cancer or getting in an accident.
This WILL kill the child.
That MIGHT kill the child. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 02-27-2007 at 01:22 PM.
quote:
What is a Naimah? A miserable pile of secrets!
No, her actions are putting the child at an increased risk of a litany of ailments. Risk does not equate to killing.
Putting a child in reasonable risk of injury or death is endangerment.
quote:
This one time, at Sakkra camp:
Putting a child in reasonable risk of injury or death is endangerment.
Then my previous examples hold. At most the government should be allowed to neglect that causes gross undue injury to a child.
On the other hand, this is London and it seems like the latest drastic step in their approach to becoming a police state. I mislike the idea of a child being mistreated, but I mislike the idea of the British government starting to realize that they can take people away who don't fit their ideas as well.
If nothing else, I hope this will be good for the kid.
Blindy. fucked around with this message on 02-27-2007 at 08:25 PM.
Say the parent was visited by a social worker because, say, another parent or a teacher at his school was concerned by his weight and couldn't get through to the parent in meetings, etc.
The parent tells the social worker to screw off - this gets the social worker to create a report that gets submitted with his/her opinion of the life of this child. Say that the social worker is, too, concerned by the child's weight.
Someone in the higher-ups sees this report and contacts the parent to offer aid by sending them to a nutritionist or to a nurse.
The parent says screw off.
The higher-up then decides that this is a 'neglect' case - the child's weight is much more than it should be (endangering his health) and the parent refuses to take steps to correct it.
I don't necessarily agree with removing the child from the home, but maybe court-ordering him and his parents in to a healthy-lifestyle program might be a better solution - that way you teach the child and the parents.
quote:
Blindy. wrote this in the snow with their pee:
Let's flip the situation. If his parents refused to feed him and he weighed 20 pounds, would you be OK with that? I mean, as long as they followed a "well defined set of rules"?
and Blindy has a good point, Naimah. Would you still say the same about the parent if the child was severely underweight?
Sometimes, somewhere, there has to be intervention (in extreme cases) BeauChan fucked around with this message on 02-27-2007 at 09:43 PM.
quote:
"If I didn't give him enough at teatime then he would just go on at us all night for snacks and stuff,"
Apparently she doesn't know how to say "NO" to an eight year old kid.
I'm glad the government wants to get involved.
quote:They said he's already missing significant amounts of time at school because of health issues. It has therefore been proven that the child is not just facing an "increased risk". He already has a "litany of ailments".
Roll the dice to see if Naimah is getting drunk!
No, her actions are putting the child at an increased risk of a litany of ailments. Risk does not equate to killing.
quote:
Connor, who lives with his mother and sister, has difficulty dressing and washing himself, misses school regularly because of poor health, and is targeted by bullies.
`Doc fucked around with this message on 02-28-2007 at 03:17 PM.
quote:
Naimah likes to say stupid stuff like:
We should just have the government do everything for us since anyone doing something wrong is apparently an unforgivable sin.
Yes. "Willfully causing massive life long health problems and an early death" is perfectly and completely captured in the words "doing something wrong."
You are a fucking poet.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Well, if you can't tell your kid "No!" or give him an a fruit or veggie instead of a cookie or cake.. then the parent needs a few lessons on parenting. Trillee fucked around with this message on 02-28-2007 at 06:55 PM.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Naimah:
I'll agree the this kid probably isn't going to live a healthy life. But that isn't the governments problem, at least in my opinion it shouldn't be.
The problem here is that someone has to take responsibility for that child. In a perfect libertarian society the local community would rise up, shoot the parents, and find someone willing to take care of the kid. (un)Fortunately we do not live in that kind of world. Thus government on some level has to take responsibility since the parents refuse to, no one else has the authority to do so since reproductive rights are so sacred.
Unless you are of the opinion that the kid should just eat himself to death and society should not be bothered by abusive parents. That is a slippery slope I think even you would not want to travel down.
