It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Again that's all conjecture without any fact.

They are not taking my kids away because I am a member here. It is wrong for you to suggest that its a comparable situation.

It is not a matter of not being able to keep weight off kids, it's a matter of obesity. I know that the majority of America is already there but that doesn't normalise it sorry.

Here is the difference between obese and fat. Link if you still think it's okay for children to be left with parents who'd subject them to that then I wouldn't be arguing with anyone who wants to take your kids away.

I mean, is everyone okay with this because its based on food? What if the kid was drinking to alcoholism, taking drugs until they develop crippling addiction? Would that be okay? And further more, if these children are allowed to get this far and never have to develop restraint in appetite or anything else for that matter what kind of people do you think they will grow to be? Useful productive members of a society, or a fat lay-about that have to have walls cut down so they can be removed to be taken to hospital.


Why do you need SOMEONE to tell you what to do? Why does ANYONE need to feel they have the right,to break up a family? Conjecture? How bout FACT. In the 30's there was this little thing called Eugenics. You werent good enough to live if you wernt blond hair,blue eyed,and of pure Aryan blood. See,a dictator and his Government 'DECIDED" that some people wernt good enough to live. Far end of the spectrum,but not surprisingly draconian,and forced upon the populous. Guess what? There were those that BELIEVED in it. There are still those who do. Fat,Obese, its not the GOVERNMENT who should say what is right,and by far, shouldn't get involved in the freedom to live free and happy. Im just glad I still have a voice to make my opinion,because there are people who "think" like you,that I shouldnt have that right,or I should be monitored. Good luck with your delusion of right and wrong.When your rights for something you believe in,get trampled,dont complain. Just remember how your opinion on this was.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

yep,disgusting,

thats for those that fall under the "depopulation program + make profit" along the way at the same time, lets not forget the profit the pharma's will make on obesity control and hospitals/health insurers/extra nursing and doctor jobs/new manufacturing/weight loss clinics and local weight loss programs from obesity related disease too, it's all about money and YOUR falling for it, have a look in your supermarket, do you see healthy foods on promotion, i dont! A strange personal observation, why are all "so called" poor people obese? yet even on my wage i(let alone my family) couldnt afford the food bill to make me fat even if i wanted to be, i dont get it!


edit on 4-9-2011 by technologicalsingularity because: ?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Starving a child is bad because of the health risks and ultimately death, is that child abuse?

Now ask yourself this:

Should you give your child fatty adult sized portions of food that causes health risks and ultimatly death?

The trouble with the UK speaking as a Brit, is that fast-food and high fat and generally bad foods are cheap compared to most healthy food, the information on the back of packs is over technical and confusing so you don't really know what your buying only that it tastes good and it will be cheap.

This is where the government needs to step in and lower the tax on healthy food, create a better and standard way of finding out how healthy a product is and cautioning parents who feed their children to an obiese level.

I think if a child is overweight the parents must either pay a fine that gets fed back into the economy or go to food lessons to learn how to cook healthy.

I don't think this would solve all the problems because children will always find a way to get sweets but it would go a damned way further than most.

By the way the government in the UK has an economic duty to reduce health problems for its citizens so there are less patients in the hospitals pressuring the NHS. This also benifits the economy by having a more healthy and therefore productive workforce and actually was the whole reason the NHS was formed in the first place.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I'd give you a hundred stars if I could



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


Environment? For god sakes, where are the obese people in famine ridden countries? I mean if its a disease or genetic there should be some, but there's not.

Being fat and going beyond fat into obese is a choice. You have to choose to stuff that 5000gs of cream down your throat, you have to have stretched your stomach to accommodate enough food to feed 5 normal people. Obesity and fatness are symptoms of laziness or depression. I don't give a flying **** if you cannot deal with your hunger pangs, if you haven't the self control to stop because of some underlying psychological trauma, it still boils down to a decision that you have to make.

Are you going to eat yourself to death or are you going to eat a moderate amount and be healthy. That's really all there is to it.


Thats not entirely true about it being a choice. In fact if you live in a famine ridden country or more importantly your mother did, studies have shown that important changes occur in the womb. When the baby is born it is more likely to store fat than a baby with a richer food source. If that baby then moved to another country that was rich in food, the genetic make up that helped the baby survive may be passed onto its decendants.

Thats why some people seem to put on weight quicker than others, some people need to store their energy and others need to burn it off fast, its all part of evolution.

Excerise helps too though



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Again that's all conjecture without any fact.

They are not taking my kids away because I am a member here. It is wrong for you to suggest that its a comparable situation.

It is not a matter of not being able to keep weight off kids, it's a matter of obesity. I know that the majority of America is already there but that doesn't normalise it sorry.

Here is the difference between obese and fat. Link if you still think it's okay for children to be left with parents who'd subject them to that then I wouldn't be arguing with anyone who wants to take your kids away.

I mean, is everyone okay with this because its based on food? What if the kid was drinking to alcoholism, taking drugs until they develop crippling addiction? Would that be okay? And further more, if these children are allowed to get this far and never have to develop restraint in appetite or anything else for that matter what kind of people do you think they will grow to be? Useful productive members of a society, or a fat lay-about that have to have walls cut down so they can be removed to be taken to hospital.


Why do you need SOMEONE to tell you what to do? Why does ANYONE need to feel they have the right,to break up a family? Conjecture? How bout FACT. In the 30's there was this little thing called Eugenics. You werent good enough to live if you wernt blond hair,blue eyed,and of pure Aryan blood. See,a dictator and his Government 'DECIDED" that some people wernt good enough to live. Far end of the spectrum,but not surprisingly draconian,and forced upon the populous. Guess what? There were those that BELIEVED in it. There are still those who do. Fat,Obese, its not the GOVERNMENT who should say what is right,and by far, shouldn't get involved in the freedom to live free and happy. Im just glad I still have a voice to make my opinion,because there are people who "think" like you,that I shouldnt have that right,or I should be monitored. Good luck with your delusion of right and wrong.When your rights for something you believe in,get trampled,dont complain. Just remember how your opinion on this was.


I believe that we all need someone to look over us because at times we are incapable of seeing past our personal prejudices into the heart of a matter. In the case of the Obese parents overfeeding their kids, they are passing their ignorance onto their children, who'll pass it on and on et infinitum, until someone steps in. It is not necessarily the parents fault, but that does not detract from the fact, that by the evidence presented by their own parenting, they are simply unable or unwilling to properly raise their kids.

You move onto the eugenics arguement which is all to common amongst you libertarian / anarchist self direction types. Eugenics is a legitimate science that has real potential. Discarding the science because of the Nazis is like saying we should also do away with Banning of Vivisection, Animal Conservation, Welfare Programs, The Volkswagen or Modern Rocketry / Jet propulsion, because they all came from Nazi Germany too. Or perhaps we should reverse our modern position on smoking because again the Nazis discovered it.


Most striking, perhaps, is that Nazi scientists pioneered the world's most sophisticated tobacco health research, including the first case control epidemiological studies, concluding unequivocally (p < 1in 10 million) that tobacco was the major cause of lung cancer.
- Philippe Boucher. You're attempting to slander the legitimate by using a loaded emotional example. Again not a particularly encouraging sign of intelligence.

It's the same idea if some asshat assaults you and you need the police. But then again, whose right is it to tell him who he can and cannot assault or damage. I'm afraid this line of argument is incredibly shallow, surface level thinking.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wigit
What about the psychological damage to the kids, surely that's worse than being called tubby at school? This family has done nothing wrong, other than they are all overweight. What about fat social workers and their fat kids?
edit on 4-9-2011 by wigit because: (no reason given)


This was more than being "tubby." They were chronically obese.

The bottom line here is that social workers and the state should not be allowed to arbitrarily invade anyone's home and kidnap their children. Full stop. I don't care about all of the willfully naive socialists out there who advocate it; the entire concept of state run child protective services SHOULD. NOT. EXIST.

It is a violation of individual freedom, plain and simple. I can't count the number of accounts I've come across, of people who've had to spend virtually the rest of their lives attempting to re-unite, once child protective services have seperated them. Of all the evil things that governments do, this is the very worst.

If I had a social worker like that, assigned to my house, I *would* put a knife to their throat and tell them that I was going to dissect them into a large number of pieces, unless they left the property immediately; and the legal consequences be damned.

I am fed up with the constant apologetics for tyranny that I witness online. We are controlled, and exploited, and abused, and dominated, over and over again...the noose keeps getting tighter and tighter, and the same bleating sheep continue to rationalise and advocate it.

Not me. I will be free, or I will be DEAD.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by klain
 


I also read an article yesterday saying that thinness comes down to a genetic mutation from obese parents or grandparents. There's a lot of research to be done, I agree, but it still comes down to putting too much food in = you'll most likely get fat.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Individual freedom is an illusion unless you live as a hermit in a forest or cave. We live in societies where we affect one another. If you want to live in society that's the implied condition. Accept it or move out.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by klain
 


this is where your very wrong! more ill people= more patients = more jobs = higher taxes = more profits = more pharma profits = more vaccines,pills,procedures and potions = more ill patients, the NHS base their success on how many people they successful treat and bring to health, not reduce, FACT!


edit on 4-9-2011 by technologicalsingularity because: bit more...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

yep,disgusting,

thats for those that fall under the "depopulation program + make profit" along the way at the same time, lets not forget the profit the pharma's will make on obesity control and hospitals/health insurers/extra nursing and doctor jobs/new manufacturing/weight loss clinics and local weight loss programs from obesity related disease too, it's all about money and YOUR falling for it, have a look in your supermarket, do you see healthy foods on promotion, i dont! A strange personal observation, why are all "so called" poor people obese? yet even on my wage i(let alone my family) couldnt afford the food bill to make me fat even if i wanted to be, i dont get it!


edit on 4-9-2011 by technologicalsingularity because: ?


Wait, what was I falling for? Lol I am for personal freedom, not the govt telling me what to do and how to raise my kids. That doesn't mean I am for unhealthy foods. I don't need the food police telling me how to eat, and it's just totalitarianism in the guise of caring for the kids. Responsibility should come in the form of adequate education about food and diet. Government programs have never proven to be anything but bureaucratic monsters. As you can see from the report that even having the kids in a "council house" did not do anything.
In fact, I have seen a big move on the part of McDonald's type fast food chains to include low fat foods, but untill they take the msg out of it, it's still going to be a problem, but mostly the food becomes boring when they try to make fast food "whole grain".
More govt regulations is not going to change anything but make it harder for everyone to comply and create more federal bureaucracies that everyone will pay for, instead of promoting individual responsibility.
In fact, I have been going to the health food store since I was a teen. My mother talked about pure drinking water in the 70's. We had whole wheat bread and so on. I just don't believe in the govt controlling everyone's personal lives. And by the way, I was making home made almond milk for my baby well before almond milk ever made it to the health food store. It meant soaking and peeling the almonds first. I made my own pureed food too. Whole grain rice cereal my baby got. Does this mean I think the govt has a right to seize people's children? I once read about a couple who were so brainwashed about recycling that they would routinely take their children to go through people's garbage cans and find food they'd thrown away. I personally think that's borderline nuts and even more dangerous than the obese kids because they could potentially be exposing their kids to foodborne pathogens.

Maybe instead the govt could ramp up real nutrition and biochemistry programs in school instead of worrying about other social engineering. The kids would be learning in school what is of nutritional value and then they can begin to take command of their own lives. I grew up reading labels, but then my mother was health conscious. That would be the real role govt could take, not snatching them from their families and dominating the home scene.
edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

gov's mask over things quite successfully i.e:- they will tell you deep frying in fat is an unhealthy cooking method for food, but the reality is it's not the deep frying that unhealthy, it's the cooking temperture being above 120C, also many so-called plugged healthy foods that largely include fruits are infact dense in carsongenics, but will tell you contain "anti-oxidants". this is just a very small example, research, research, research.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

gov's mask over things quite successfully i.e:- they will tell you deep frying in fat is an unhealthy cooking method for food, but the reality is it's not the deep frying that unhealthy, it's the cooking temperture being above 120C, also many so-called plugged healthy foods that largely include fruits are infact dense in carsongenics, but will tell you contain "anti-oxidants". this is just a very small example, research, research, research.





Yes, I hear you about that. You sound very health conscious and knowledgeable. How can we share that with people without going the Totalitarian route?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You dont' own your children, and neither does the State. Parents are the natural guardians of their children, not the State.


''State'' and ''society'' are not synonymous.

Parents are the guardians of their children due to convenience. Adoption and fostering shows strong evidence that there is absolutely no necessity for a child to be raised by his or her biological parent(s).



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TRiPWiRE
 


This study - 57% of women said they'd rather be ran over a truck OR DIE AN EARLY DEATH than be fat.

Now that screams at me that this is NOT merely a 'fat people should chose to be healthier' problem.
But we do all have a 100% probability of death.

My dad, it's kinda funny really - no, he never, ever drank, smoke...he was obsessed with his health his whole life, very strict diet..so he's like in perfect health- resting heart rate about 54, suddenly he gets an arrhythmia. I wish I could have bottled the look on his face when they told him it was his heart. No- it can't be- it can't! I've ran marathons, I still run 25-30 miles a week - it can't be my heart. Doc says, It's electrical, no amount of exercise can protect you from it. We're going to have to stop your heart and restart it, and you're going to have to go on heart meds.

All that night my dad was like "But I always took care of myself...." We get old. We freaking die. That's the only fact I know for sure.

For every study about obesity causing this or that, you can find another saying just the opposite. And as for healthcare cost on society, I'm not sure I buy it. If fat people die early, then the society doesn't have to pay for years of nursing home care and depends.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You dont' own your children, and neither does the State. Parents are the natural guardians of their children, not the State.


''State'' and ''society'' are not synonymous.

Parents are the guardians of their children due to convenience. Adoption and fostering shows strong evidence that there is absolutely no necessity for a child to be raised by his or her biological parent(s).


No, they are the guardians due to it being a natural condition, not convenience. You seem to be supporting a collective, so in my view, you are opposed to parental rights. Yes Statism is collectivism.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Imhotepsol

Originally posted by TRiPWiRE
reply to post by hadriana
 

I don't enjoy fast food advertising being blasted at me every 5 minutes and then walking past one to see it filled to capacity with people clutching handfuls of burgers and chips (sorry, "fries!").




for saying what we were all thinking. That's the exact image I get when I see those people in fast food chains. Literally shovelling handfuls of chips and bits of burger into their mouths at the same time. Ugh, it's disgusting.


It sure beat the horrid school lunches we had when I was in public schools. We would walk to the nearest Burger King and we loved it.


May I ask what was horrid about them? I mean were they poorly prepared slops or is it just the fact they served vegetables etc. and Burger King "tasted" nicer? I’ve been to schools where they do serve steamed vegetables as an option, however kids were going down the street for pies and chips because they “didn’t like the yucky vegetables”. That’s a sign of not being bought up to appreciate healthy food.

My son is three – he LOVES broccoli and eats it directly from our garden. I have no qualms about him having a burger or something similar on occasion, however he eats any healthy food placed before him and genuinely appears to enjoy it.

I ask because that’s one of my pet hates. Schools that don't really encourage children to eat healthy foods because the muck they serve is terrible. They basically turn kids towards the fast food outlets.

A number of schools around here have started incorporating healthy foods into the children’s lunches. One school has children preparing their own pizzas. These are vegetable based and far healthier than the fast food option (less salt, fats and processed meats). Because children relate "pizzas" to something yummy (i.e. Dominoes or Pizza Hut), they eagerly make and eat these healthier alternatives.

It’s a bit sad that this needs to be done (basically tricking students in a way – but a positive way – I don’t think we should be at the stage where we need to disguise good food, but sadly we are), but it’s a positive step forward.

edit on 4/9/11 by TRiPWiRE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


One example I can give of obesity causing issues is the human frame itself. It’s simply not designed to be carrying excessive weight. The pressure being placed on joints is exceedingly difficult for them to stand up to over time.

Of course everyone can die suddenly and unexpectedly no matter what their health. Our neighbour is the same - he has only just passed away at a reasonably young age from a massive heart attack. No symptoms leading up to it - he just went out to his shed to grab something and never came back. He ate wholesome food, trained well and was very fit.

I still say that people need to try and maintain a healthy lifestyle. To say "it’s not true" & "people can die anyway", is excuses I hear from obese people who don't want to put the work into losing weight.

Whether they like it or not, it’s not how the human body is supposed to be. It’s a modern day epidemic and one that concerns me greatly.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Hi, this is my first post here on ATS, been a lurker for many years and plan on writing an introduction in the next couple of days.

Anyway, I wanted to comment on this thread. I'm from Canada and much like the US and UK, obesity has become a problem here as well. It really disturbs me when I see obese parents with obese children. Though the parents usually have a choice about whether or not to control their weight (through diet and exercise), the children are born into this lifestyle.

It reminds me of a family I recently saw at the Canadian National Exhibition. My wife and I were in the food building at the time and sitting near us was a family of four; The mother, father, young boy around 3 years old and a young girl who was about 1 years old. All of them were very obese, including the 1 year old! I remember how shocked I was to notice that the one year old's legs were larger than my arm! It was so sad. And of course they were eating really unhealthy food at the time.

Taking children away from the parents is a little extreme I think. Wouldn't a better solution be something along the lines of setting up a dietitian to work with the family instead of just warning them? I'm not sure if in this paticular case the parents themselves were obese but it is probablly the case. That being said, if the parents don't know how to manage their own weight, how difficult is it for them to do it for their children?
Education is the key here. I also believe that once you fall into this type of lifestyle it can be extremely difficult to break out of. It can be a downward spiral because depression can set in and depression has a way of squashing motivation. You start to give up hope and aren't motivated to learn how to fix the problem.
The amount of resources it would take to remove these children could be used instead to educate the parents and work with them to help themselves as well as their family.

That's my take on it anyhow.
Cheers!

-Elldren



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
Individual freedom is an illusion unless you live as a hermit in a forest or cave. We live in societies where we affect one another. If you want to live in society that's the implied condition. Accept it or move out.


a] I largely am reclusive.

b] This opinion is ignorant, and yet more apologetics for tyranny.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join