# A bad year to be fat



## Charles (Dec 25, 2007)

The year kicked off with the news that an overweight boy from North Tyneside could be taken from his mother by child protection officials. 


Are they fed up of being told they're part of an 'epidemic'? 

Her apparent crime: overfeeding her son. 

He was allowed to stay at home, but in the months to come various investigations - including one by the BBC - would uncover that obesity had been a factor in perhaps as many as two dozen child protection cases. 

Some professionals said allowing a child to become obese had to be viewed as a form of neglect, given the potential health consequences. 


Full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7140844.stm


----------



## pudgy (Dec 25, 2007)

I suppose one has to be careful about how to draw the line here. Just as in anything else with parenting - or life in general - one has to wonder how much is too much. Though overweight children is not a crime, eight year olds who weigh 400 pounds because their mother won't their children could very well be seen as neglect. There has to be a balance. And just because most of us on Dimensions realize that Fat is not the evilest thing ever, it doesn't mean that everything to do with Fat is a-okay.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 26, 2007)

Charles said:


> The year kicked off with the news that an overweight boy from North Tyneside could be taken from his mother by child protection officials.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Charles said:


> The year kicked off with the news that an overweight boy from North Tyneside could be taken from his mother by child protection officials.
> 
> 
> Are they fed up of being told they're part of an 'epidemic'?
> ...



The original article didn't quote that the boy originally weighed 15 stones 8 lb, which is roughly 220 pounds. That is about 4 times what most 8-year-olds weigh. We're not talking about a child who is a little pudgy, somewhat overweight, or even (gasp) obese. I have to wonder why this little boy was allowed to become so large. At this age, his mother should have some control over his diet. 

From "The Times" in London: *Though Connor McCreaddie is only an eight-year-old boy, his sheer size has turned him into a demolition man. At 14 stone, and with a boys abandon, he has broken four beds, six lavatory seats and five bicycles. And hes still got a lot of growing to do. His obesity and lack of fitness mean he has difficulty walking. Sometimes he cannot even manage the seven-minute stroll to school, leading to a poor attendance record and missed education. 
* 

This is not an adult that we're talking about. It is a vulnerable child. And to me, child abuse is about a lot more than physical harm. I look at my own son, and can't imagine his young life filled with pain, humiliation, and immobility ... all conditions that Connor must live with. 

I'm not suggesting blanket condemnation of the mother ... but I think that social services *should* be investigating this matter. She claims helplessness with regard to his diet, while allowing him to eat primarily processed, starchy foods, chips, and cookies (says he won't touch fruits/vegetables). To me, that is a matter of ignorance. Of course he's not going to eat healthier foods, if he's being given his (unlimited) choice of delicious junk. Seems to me that his mother needs to be educated about healthier choices for her son, and about not allowing herself to be bullied by an *8 YEAR OLD*. 

When I was a child, the rule was: eat what is put in front of you, or do without. That was a bit harsh, and it's something that I would only selectively enforce with my son. It is up to me to decide what he eats at home, and in what quantity, while under my supervision. There is no way I'd ever let him eat his fill of deep fried foods, cookies, chips, pudding, etc ... while ignoring fruits, vegetables, healthy starches, lean protein, etc. That is, to me, a form of child abuse.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

I went and read several articles about this case, and I have to say I don't see how this qualifies as child abuse. I see it rather as a situation in which there might be room for counseling and education, but I can't agree that this child should be taken away from its mother under these circumstances. I think it could potentially be much more harmful than his being overweight.

I see the motives here as possible scapegoating, a symbolic act in which fat is punished for its own sake, rather than as a simple act of intervention on behalf of this particular child. If it were the case that officials really had this child's best interest at heart, I would expect to see a concerted effort to work together with the mother to take *longterm* measures toward this child's wellbeing.

As it happens, the authorities evidently did decide to allow the mother keep the child, striking some sort of deal with her (I wasn't able to find out details of the deal). It's possible some sort of intervention was necessary, but I am glad to see that the state seemed to come to its senses in the end. 

Fat is widely misunderstood, and if the authorities are going to insist that it's not OK for children to be fat, they are going to have to proceed judiciously unless they want to open the way for charges of excess. There is a groundswell of similar cases, and I think we're going to see more and more of them. So I think we have to be prepared to ask ourselves just what our motives are, and what is truly best for these children. For instance, couldn't--and shouldn't--there be a middleground where we don't rip children away from their loving families in the name of saving them from obesity? We are not talking about people who are slamming kids' heads into walls. We're not even talking about people forcefeeding their children. I think what we have here at best is ignorance about healthy eating choices and possibly a situation where the mother herself doesn't know how to set limits. (Let's not forget that as a single mother, this particular woman may well have limited time and funds available to her for preparing and serving meals for her family--processed and junk food is often much less expensive and more convenient than healthy, whole foods.)

The movement to protect obese children from their own families is often at best misguided; at worst it can be a kind of symbolic scapegoating that punishes fat simply for being fat.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

> I'm not suggesting blanket condemnation of the mother ... but I think that social services *should* be investigating this matter. She claims helplessness with regard to his diet, while allowing him to eat primarily processed, starchy foods, chips, and cookies (says he won't touch fruits/vegetables). To me, that is a matter of ignorance. Of course he's not going to eat healthier foods, if he's being given his (unlimited) choice of delicious junk. Seems to me that his mother needs to be educated about healthier choices for her son, and about not allowing herself to be bullied by an *8 YEAR OLD*.



Since when is an 8 year old qualified to make choices like what he will and won't eat? The mother did not say she could only afford starchy/fried foods, she said "he won't touch fruits and vegetables." 

Traci's right. If an 8 year old can't walk for 7 minutes and is missing school, and mom hasn't done her job. Somewhere along the way she had to notice there was a problem, and if she did not step in and try to fix it, then yes, somebody else has to. Does it suck? Yes. But when the alternative is a child who can't walk and is facing serious health issues at a young age, drastic measures may be needed.

And let's agree that this is NOT the same thing as whether or not an airline charges for two seats for an obese passenger. We are talking about the well being of an eight year old. It's not about him being "fat", it's about him being unable to walk.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> For instance, couldn't--and shouldn't--there be a middleground where we don't rip children away from their loving families in the name of saving them from obesity? We are not talking about people who are slamming kids' heads into walls. We're not even talking about people forcefeeding their children. I think what we have here at best is ignorance about healthy eating choices and possibly a situation where the mother herself doesn't know how to set limits. (Let's not forget that as a single mother, this particular woman may well have limited time and funds available to her for preparing and serving meals for her family--processed and junk food is often much less expensive and more convenient than healthy, whole foods.)
> 
> The movement to protect obese children from their own families is often at best misguided; at worst it can be a kind of symbolic scapegoating that punishes fat simply for being fat.



There are many forms of child abuse. Allowing an 8-year-old to dictate his own dietary choices (and thus live with the physical & psychological consequences) *is* a form of abuse, IMO. I also did a search about this particular family; it wasn't mentioned that she had limited funds ... and given what she was feeding her son, quite the opposite would appear to be true. 

I wouldn't suggest removing the child from an otherwise loving home, either ... but yes, some intervention seemed to be necessary for Connor's well being. The fact that he's unable to manage a 7-minute walk to school, in & of itself, is a gigantic red flag to me. If she cannot or will not make the recommended changes in her son's diet ... then yes, possibly he *should* be removed from her care, for a time. That isn't to say that she shouldn't be given a chance to make these changes ... but I think she should be faced with the possible consequences of losing her son, if she doesn't. 

Sure, processed junk food is more convenient. I work 10 hour days, and when factoring in commuter time, I am away from my home from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. When I get home, I'm often tempted to open a can of spaghetti-o's and dump them on my son's tray (and sometimes, this is exactly what I do ... key here being ... sometimes). It's not fun & easy to prepare wholesome, nutritious food. It's even more a pain in the ass when he eats one bite, then sweeps the rest of it onto the floor. But I do it, because I want what is best for my son. That shouldn't rate me a pat on the back ... it is what responsible parents should do, as a matter of course. 

My child doesn't get to decide that he'll have 4 packages of crisps instead of an apple. The time to instill healthy eating habits in him is *now* ... so that when he's older, and more in control of his own diet, he can briefly ponder before dismissing the notion of eating a banana instead of a whopper  Point being ... now, while he is growing & needs adequate nourishment, I can control his food choices.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

If you allow your child to compromise his health to the point where he can not walk, there's a problem.

This is not about aesthetics or bullying a fat kid, it's about a small child being unable to walk for 7 minutes and "refusing" to eat healthy food.

I have never seen any public report of this sort of thing happening where a child was merely overweight or just a fat kid. The situations we see on the news involve children whose health is at risk. Should we really allow them to continue is a situation that is killing them just in the name of being politically correct?


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> If you allow your child to compromise his health to the point where he can not walk, there's a problem.
> 
> This is not about aesthetics or bullying a fat kid, it's about a small child being unable to walk for 7 minutes and "refusing" to eat healthy food.
> 
> I have never seen any public report of this sort of thing happening where a child was merely overweight or just a fat kid. The situations we see on the news involve children whose health is at risk. Should we really allow them to continue is a situation that is killing them just in the name of being politically correct?



_Just_ in the name of being politically correct? Me? I hope that wasn't in response to my post, Love. I thought I was being reasonable by suggesting a middleground where social services can work with a parent to put longterm healthy habits in place. So I don't think it should be paintes as a case of anyone wanting to sacrifice children for the sake of political gains. 

TraciJo, I think we're both sort of in agreement. I don't disagree that the mom is responsible for feeding this kid adequately, though I also wonder to what extent the father can be held accountable for the situation. But I think that intervention could help more than taking the kid away in this case. What I don't want is to see children being taken away from otherwise loving homes when any number of other measures could be tried to see to kids' wellbeing.

PS - I saw a photo of your boy in another thread. Very handsome.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> _Just_ in the name of being politically correct? Me? I hope that wasn't in response to my post, Love. I thought I was being reasonable by suggesting a middleground where social services can work with a parent to put longterm healthy habits in place. So I don't think it should be paintes as a case of anyone wanting to sacrifice children for the sake of political gains.
> 
> TraciJo, I think we're both sort of in agreement. I don't disagree that the mom is responsible for feeding this kid adequately, though I also wonder to what extent the father can be held accountable for the situation. But I think that intervention could help more than taking the kid away in this case. What I don't want is to see children being taken away from otherwise loving homes when any number of other measures could be tried to see to kids' wellbeing.
> 
> PS - I saw a photo of your boy in another thread. Very handsome.



The comment about political correctness was not aimed at anyone. My problem is when something like a helpless child's health and well being are mentioned along the same lines as size discrimination.

Without knowing the specifics, I don't think children are taken from parents unless there appears to be imminent danger to the child's health. I don't know how things work in the UK, but it only seems to happen in the US under very severe circumstances.

From what's been posted here though, this problem goes beyond educating the mother about what is and is not healthy. According to what Traci posted, the mom said the kid just would not eat fruits and vegetables. This seems to indicate that she knows what is healthy and what's not, and she's letting an 8year old run her life. Bad.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> This seems to indicate that she knows what is healthy and what's not, and she's letting an 8year old run her life. Bad.



Then you work with her to teach her parenting skills. If she is uncooperative, you move from there. You don't take a kid away from a family that is otherwise loving because the mom is a pushover.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> Then you work with her to teach her parenting skills. If she is uncooperative, you move from there. You don't take a kid away from a family that is otherwise loving because the mom is a pushover.



And what if she refuses to be worked with? From articles I've read, she appears to be blaming the social workers, the medical professionals, the dietician .... in fact, pretty much everyone but HERSELF. This doesn't bode well for the possibility of her following a case plan. And if she doesn't ... then what?


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

TraciJo67 said:


> This doesn't bode well for the possibility of her following a case plan. And if she doesn't ... then what?



If the child's health continues to suffer due to the mother's explicit neglect in following through with a case plan, and it can be documented that he would be better off in another home, then you'd have grounds to take him away from her I think.

Now here's my question to you: What happens if she does follow through with documented steps to stick to the case plan, and he does not lose weight? In other words, if there is some sort of condition that he suffers from?

Also, what do we do about parents who feed their kids junk, even if their kids are not overweight? I know of at least two kids who are growing up eating nothing but processed and junk food, but they remain thin. They may be able to walk around, but what kind of harm is the all-junk diet doing them? Or is it only neglectful when the kids get fat?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> If the child's health continues to suffer due to the mother's explicit neglect in following through with a case plan, and it can be documented that he would be better off in another home, then you'd have grounds to take him away from her I think.
> 
> Now here's my question to you: What happens if she does follow through with documented steps to stick to the case plan, and he does not lose weight? In other words, if there is some sort of condition that he suffers from?
> 
> Also, what do we do about parents who feed their kids junk, even if their kids are not overweight? I know of at least two kids who are growing up eating nothing but processed and junk food, but they remain thin. They may be able to walk around, but what kind of harm is the all-junk diet doing them? Or is it only neglectful when the kids get fat?



If he suffers from a health condition that has lead to this situation, that needs to be targeted and addressed. Hopefully, this child has received or will receive a full medical checkup to determine if this is the case. It may even be a contributing factor to what sort of eating plan he should follow.

There is no easy answer to your second question. But let's start with the fact that it's a tragedy that this child can barely walk. At some point, a parent or caregiver should have seen him moving towards that point and stepped in. That did not happen. It's also possible if this kid DOES have a health condition of some sort, he's in the unfortunate position of not being able to eat the same diet as his peers. That would not be different if you fed a diabetic child a ton of carbs or a child with lactose intolerance a bowl of ice cream.

It should also be mentioned the fat is a sympton of neglect, the fact of his being obese is not the neglect per se.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> There is no easy answer to your second question.



Well, but one could try. It's a fair question, I think. What do we do about parents who feed their children all-junk diets though the kids are not visibly fat?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> Well, but one could try. It's a fair question, I think. What do we do about parents who feed their children all-junk diets though the kids are not visibly fat?



The absence of symptoms doesn't always mean that child isn't being abused. Unfortunately, we're never going to catch all of the molesting uncles/fathers/teachers or the mothers who are just smart enough to avoid leaving bruises in easily discernible places. Does that mean we shouldn't make an effort to end child abuse, or that it's unfair discrimination because Child A with the angry finger-shaped welts on her arm is under investigation ... while Child B, who just happens to be more withdrawn than usual, is not? 

There is no way to investigate every family, nor should we. If there is probable cause for suspicion of abuse/neglect, such as an 8-year-old weighing 220 pounds, obviously, it needs to be looked into.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> Well, but one could try. It's a fair question, I think. What do we do about parents who feed their children all-junk diets though the kids are not visibly fat?



That's like saying what do we do about parents who beat their kids but don't leave bruises. We can't always see the effects of neglect, but where we can, we should address them.

But beyond that, this is not just about junk food. It's about allowing a child to get to a size where he can't walk. However that came to be, it's a tragedy and should be addressed by the authorities. My bigger point is that we should be worrying about the health and well being of an eight year old, not about size acceptance.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> we should be worrying about the health and well being of an eight year old, not about size acceptance.



I don't see these two issues as mutually exclusive.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> I don't see these two issues as mutually exclusive.



An eight year old child is not qualified to be the poster boy for size acceptance.

If an adult wants to make an issue of public accomodations, airline seating, access to employment or housing, or simply public perception of the obses, that is his or her choice.

An eight year old child is wholly at the whims of adults.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> Fat is widely misunderstood, and if the authorities are going to insist that it's not OK for children to be fat, they are going to have to proceed judiciously unless they want to open the way for charges of excess.




The reason this is an important size acceptance issue is the presumption that fat children stuff their faces with junk food--or that their moms stuff their faces with junk food. 

I'd like to think that all of us here understand that it is easily possible for adults to weigh 400 pounds or more while still eating a normal diet. If that's so, why is it so hard to understand that a fat child can weigh 200 pounds and have an equally slow metabolism?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> The reason this is an important size acceptance issue is the presumption that fat children stuff their faces with junk food--or that their moms stuff their faces with junk food.
> 
> I'd like to think that all of us here understand that it is easily possible for adults to weigh 400 pounds or more while still eating a normal diet. If that's so, why is it so hard to understand that a fat child can weigh 200 pounds and have an equally slow metabolism?



You really can not compare the skeletal and musculature systems of a child with those of an adult. The size of an eight year old child has nothing to do with the normal size variations of an adult human body.

By the news accounts, this child was eating junk food, not a "normal diet." A child of that age is growing and needs proper nutrition, not junk. The mother was quoted saying he wouldn't eat fruits and vegetables, which are a necessary part of a healthy diet.

If a child literally can't walk, he's not healthy. If an eight year old is unable to walk for 7 minutes, it's a serious problem.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> You really can not compare the skeletal and musculature systems of a child with those of an adult. The size of an eight year old child has nothing to do with the normal size variations of an adult human body.



I was talking about metabolism, not "skeletal and musculature systems".

A fat child can have a slow metabolism that stores fat efficiently just as easily as a fat adult can.

Now I don't know the specifics about the child's nutrition, but if the _news media_ or _government authorities _are making some sort of value determination, you should assume from the outset that there's a 50% chance they are wrong.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I was talking about metabolism, not "skeletal and musculature systems".
> 
> A fat child can have a slow metabolism that stores fat efficiently just as easily as a fat adult can.
> 
> Now I don't know the specifics about the child's nutrition, but if the _news media_ or _government authorities _are making some sort of value determination, you should assume from the outset that there's a 50% chance they are wrong.



And I was talking about the likelihood that an eight year old child should weigh over 200 pounds. My reference to the skeletal system is that the skeletal system of an eight year old is not intended to hold that much weight. If he can't walk for 7 minutes, that's a problem.

Do you really, honestly believe that this child is eating the same amount as his peers and simply being more effcient about storing it? I just don't believe that.

All we have to go on to comment on this story is the mother's saying this child won't eat fruit or veggies, and can't walk for 7 minutes. Both of those things indicate a problem. And bias on the part of the news media or government is not the issue. The issue is the health and well being of an eight year old.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> An eight year old child is not qualified to be the poster boy for size acceptance.



Really, this language bothers me a little, with all due respect. It implies that any objection to Connor's removal from his home is politicized, when in fact I took the trouble of reading a little about Connor's particular situation to see if I could come to my own conclusion about what was best for this particular boy. I did that in the interest of being able to make an informed argument here only, as there's no sense in pretending that I have any say, even remotely, on what happens to this boy. I've conceded that if this truly turns out to be a case of a neglectful mother, the child may need to be taken away.

On the other hand, when a child is taken away from his family not for the sake of his wellbeing, but for the sake of persecuting fat as fat, then I would think you'd agree that it would be in his interest for someone to advocate against that, to at least insist on some kind of intermediary steps before a kid is snatched from his mother's bosom. I want to make it clear that I'm not saying this is the case in Connor's case, at least I can't be sure. I do say we need to proceed with care in general in these cases, that we're not acting on prejudice and that our actions really end up being beneficial in the end. When a child can't walk to school because of his weight, we may be looking at a parent who has poor parenting skills and really could benefit from counseling and education. Or we may be looking at someone who just doesn't care, and in that case I say the kid is probably better off somewhere else.

You appear to think that by advocating caution and moderation I am trying to make this child into a poster boy for something. I assure you, that is not the case and I'd appreciate you not reducing my side here to a straw man. I am simply calling for an acknowledgment that taking kids away from their parents may not be advisable in every case. I hope that's allowed without my being cast into the role of some juggernaut who'd sacrifice everything to size acceptance.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

> I am simply calling for an acknowledgment that taking kids away from their parents may not be advisable in every case.



This is not "every case." This is a very specific case. This is a child who is not properly nourished (as indicated by his eating only junk, and refusing fruits and vegetables) who cannot walk FOR SEVEN MINUTES to school. That is child endangerment, if not outright abuse. This isn't the authorities intervening because little Joey needs to shop in the husky section, or cannot get a date to the middle school semi-formal. No, this is a child whose health is very obviously impaired due to the choices his mother makes FOR HIM, because he cannot make them himself. She is responsible for his well-being, and is obviously not donig a good job. She should, at the least, be supervised by child services and be FORCED (yes, forced) to attend proper parenting and nutrition classes. 

If she refuses, she loses her kid. Such willful negligence does not deserve a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> And I was talking about the likelihood that an eight year old child should weigh over 200 pounds. My reference to the skeletal system is that the skeletal system of an eight year old is not intended to hold that much weight. If he can't walk for 7 minutes, that's a problem.



Lots of grownups can't walk for seven minutes. I agree that's a problem, but do you think it's the sort of problem that justifies meddling in their lives?


LoveBHMS said:


> Do you really, honestly believe that this child is eating the same amount as his peers and simply being more effcient about storing it? I just don't believe that.



I believe that we actually don't know the facts, and I question the "right" of our society to engage in lifestyle Nazism. 

But there are many people who--if you changed the news item from a 200 pound 8-year old child to a 500 pound 38-year old woman, would say exactly what you are saying if she stated she eats normally. They would scoff and snort and assume she sits on a couch all day, stuffing herself with potato chips, coffee cakes, and Little Debbie. 



LoveBHMS said:


> All we have to go on to comment on this story is the mother's saying this child won't eat fruit or veggies, and can't walk for 7 minutes. Both of those things indicate a problem. And bias on the part of the news media or government is not the issue. The issue is the health and well being of an eight year old.



It's an issue if said bias does what media and government bias ('ignorance' rather than 'bias' would be a better term) usually does--create more problems in place of constructively solving anything.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Nobody is saying it's advisable in every case.

According to news items, the authorities _tried_ to work with the mother and she skipped meetings with social workers and others. According to the mother, this kid "once had a bite of apple and spit it out. He prefers processed foods." That's what is in the news.

We are talking about a child who has trouble walking and dressing himself. It's not as if social services just saw a fat kid and said "hey, that kid is FAT. Let's go get him."

The reason I say he's being made into a poster boy for Size Acceptance is the fact that it's being discussed on this board.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Lots of grownups can't walk for seven minutes. I agree that's a problem, but do you think it's the sort of problem that justifies meddling in their lives?



Yes. And instead of using a loaded word like "meddling," say what it really means. It means encouraging this individual to exercise and eat healthfully. The human body is meant to be active, and not being able to walk 7 minutes? Unless it's up a near-vertical incline or a mountain path, then there is a problem.



> I believe that we actually don't know the facts, and I question the "right" of our society to engage in lifestyle Nazism.



Nice loaded terminology again. Also, Godwin's Law. Is making smokers go outside lifestyle Nazism? What about emissions requirements for automobiles? Laws prohibiting driving while talking on a cell phone? Those pesky seatbelt laws? How about that damnable policy penalizing me for driving over the speedlimit? How about that whole car inspection nonsense? Why not just do away with it because it's an inconvenience, eh? 



> But there are many people who--if you changed the news item from a 200 pound 8-year old child to a 500 pound 38-year old woman, would say exactly what you are saying if she stated she eats normally. They would scoff and snort and assume she sits on a couch all day, stuffing herself with potato chips, coffee cakes, and Little Debbie.



You are ignoring an important and salient fact. *This kid does not eat normally*. He eats junk food. It is his diet that is affecting his quality of life.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I was talking about metabolism, not "skeletal and musculature systems".
> 
> A fat child can have a slow metabolism that stores fat efficiently just as easily as a fat adult can.
> 
> Now I don't know the specifics about the child's nutrition, but if the _news media_ or _government authorities _are making some sort of value determination, you should assume from the outset that there's a 50% chance they are wrong.



By the mother's own admission, as well as documentation from a news crew, the child was eating ONLY processed and deep fried food, chips, cookies, candy, and take-out. And, a LOT of it. He was snacking every 20 minutes. 

This is a clear-cut case of, at the very least, neglect. There are many examples of healthy, somewhat fat children -- my own nieces are active, playful, LOVE fruits & vegetables, and both are also in the 95th percentile on the weight chart for children -- officially classified as obese. They have two fat parents. Certainly, metabolism plays a role; they also happen to have very healthy appetites and could quite easily eat a generous adult-sized portion. Their mother, however, makes a concerted effort to ensure that they are eating wholesomely. She allows them unlimited portions of cut-up raw vegetables, lots of fruit, smaller portions of cheese wedges, etc ... and limits cookies, candy, etc to special occassions.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

> But there are many people who--if you changed the news item from a 200 pound 8-year old child to a 500 pound 38-year old woman, would say exactly what you are saying if she stated she eats normally. They would scoff and snort and assume she sits on a couch all day, stuffing herself with potato chips, coffee cakes, and Little Debbie.



*The issue here is it's NOT an adult, it's a child.* There is not, and should not be a comparison.

If an adult has compromised his or her health to the point of not being able to walk for 7 minutes, he or she can deal with the consequences and can work to change things. A child can't. Additionally, by making 18 the 'legal' age of adulthood, we admit that children are not always qualified to make choices about things. Sometimes? Yes. Always? No.

I also have no idea of what you mean by eating "normally". What exactly do you term "normal"?


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

This case is bothering me and I just have a few questions:

"How many children are taken away from their moms when they are bruised and battered but the mom denies beating them?"

"How many anorexic children are taken away from their family *for their own safety?"

I think this child is obese and the mom needs nutritional education but taking the child away is abhorant.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> This is not "every case." This is a very specific case. This is a child who is not properly nourished (as indicated by his eating only junk, and refusing fruits and vegetables) who cannot walk FOR SEVEN MINUTES to school. That is child endangerment, if not outright abuse. This isn't the authorities intervening because little Joey needs to shop in the husky section, or cannot get a date to the middle school semi-formal. No, this is a child whose health is very obviously impaired due to the choices his mother makes FOR HIM, because he cannot make them himself. She is responsible for his well-being, and is obviously not donig a good job. She should, at the least, be supervised by child services and be FORCED (yes, forced) to attend proper parenting and nutrition classes.
> 
> If she refuses, she loses her kid. Such willful negligence does not deserve a slap on the wrist.



We went over all of this earlier, and I don't have anything new to add.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> We went over all of this earlier, and I don't have anything new to add.



But you've made statements that still indicate, to me, that you didn't fully research this particular case ... or you'd see that the child was NOT taken from his mother ... and that Social Services HAS recommended a case plan. The issue that remains is whether or not the mother chooses to follow it.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> This case is bothering me and I just have a few questions:
> 
> "How many children are taken away from their moms when they are bruised and battered but the mom denies beating them?"
> 
> ...



1. Uh, all of them? The abuse is obvious, the police/case worker/paramedic takes the kids away and investigation and litigation begins. What's your point?

2. Irrelevant, Sandie. The adolescent (rarely children, typically adolescents in early to mid teens) is denying food to themselves; this is not a case of a parent restricting food. And at this juncture, when the adolescent has harmed themselves, they are hospitalized and put into therapy. Anorexics know what they are doing. They fear hospitalization, they fear their parents/family/friends finding out.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> Yes. And instead of using a loaded word like "meddling," say what it really means. It means encouraging this individual to exercise and eat healthfully. The human body is meant to be active, and not being able to walk 7 minutes? Unless it's up a near-vertical incline or a mountain path, then there is a problem.



Yes, there certainly is a problem. I can't walk for 7 minutes. I'm over 400 lbs. If you didn't know my health history you would assume it's cause I'm fat. But it's not - I have back damage from a car accident. Before the accident when I was about 350 I could walk a mile in 15 minutes.

Assumptions are a terrible thing to make.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> This case is bothering me and I just have a few questions:
> 
> "How many children are taken away from their moms when they are bruised and battered but the mom denies beating them?"
> 
> ...



Since advanced cases of anorexia nervosa are not common among eight year olds, it's not a valid comparison. However how many severely underweight and malnourished children are taken from parents? I'm sure many of them are.

I'm not a social worker, but I don't think "bruised and battered" children are routinely left in the care of suspected abusers.

Bottom line, this just is not about fat bias/size acceptance. It's about child neglect.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Yes, there certainly is a problem. I can't walk for 7 minutes. I'm over 400 lbs. If you didn't know my health history you would assume it's cause I'm fat. But it's not - I have back damage from a car accident. Before the accident when I was about 350 I could walk a mile in 15 minutes.
> 
> Assumptions are a terrible thing to make.



In the case we're currently discussing, the child cannot walk because he is too obese to do so. This isn't assumption; it is documented fact. The child is 4 times the size of most comparable 8-year-olds. 

Honestly, I don't understand why this is being made into a size acceptance issue. It appears to be a very clear-cut case of neglect on the part of the mother .... who is allowing herself to be bullied by her child.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Yes, there certainly is a problem. I can't walk for 7 minutes. I'm over 400 lbs. If you didn't know my health history you would assume it's cause I'm fat. But it's not - I have back damage from a car accident. Before the accident when I was about 350 I could walk a mile in 15 minutes.
> 
> Assumptions are a terrible thing to make.



It's still a health matter. A person with a spinal cord injury, a broken leg, or chronic fatigue syndrome also couldn't walk for 7 minutes. In all cases, there is a medical reason why they can't do so. Whether or not anyone would make assumptions in your case is not relevant to this child. There is no indication he was in a car accident or had any other health issues. If that were the case, don't you think the mother would be screaming "He can't walk due to ________ (health issue), it's not the obesity."

And futhermore, the child has NOT yet been taken away. However it should be noted he's developed these problems under the mother's current care. Obviously something needs to change.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> As it happens, the authorities evidently did decide to allow the mother keep the child, striking some sort of deal with her (I wasn't able to find out details of the deal). It's possible some sort of intervention was necessary, but I am glad to see that the state seemed to come to its senses in the end.



Traci, the above is from one of my posts on page 1 of this thread. I also agreed with you at some point that if the mother can't follow the case plan, the child might be better off in another environment.



TraciJo67 said:


> or you'd see that the child was NOT taken from his mother ... and that Social Services HAS recommended a case plan. The issue that remains is whether or not the mother chooses to follow it.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> 1. Uh, all of them? The abuse is obvious, the police/case worker/paramedic takes the kids away and investigation and litigation begins. What's your point?



Really? Is that so?? Do you work in child services? Do you work in a hospital? Do you know how many children die every year from abuse because they are NOT taken out of an abusive home??? My sister married a man who raped her 7 year old daughter. Do you know what happened when the state got involved? Nothing. And to this day (11 years later) nothing has been done in the way of therapy or counceling for my neice or my sister. That kind of thing is more normal than not.

2. Irrelevant, Sandie. The adolescent (rarely children, typically adolescents in early to mid teens) is denying food to themselves; this is not a case of a parent restricting food. And at this juncture, when the adolescent has harmed themselves, they are hospitalized and put into therapy. Anorexics know what they are doing. They fear hospitalization, they fear their parents/family/friends finding out.[/QUOTE]


It certainly is not irrelevant. Anorexia is as deadly as obesity maybe more so. It also can stem from family dynamics. Taking the child out of the home to help them get well is as relevant as taking an obese child out. 

Too much food - too little food 2 seperate ends of the same disease.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> It's still a health matter. A person with a spinal cord injury, a broken leg, or chronic fatigue syndrome also couldn't walk for 7 minutes. In all cases, there is a medical reason why they can't do so. Whether or not anyone would make assumptions in your case is not relevant to this child. There is no indication he was in a car accident or had any other health issues. If that were the case, don't you think the mother would be screaming "He can't walk due to ________ (health issue), it's not the obesity."



I don't know - would she be screaming that? What if she has no idea there is a metabolic disorder??? I was 300 lbs in junior high. I was told over and over - lose weight!!!! I couldn't. But - no one doctor cared if I had a regular period or why I had facial and body hair. And if they asked, they never connected it to my weight. I didn't find out until I was 40 that I had PCOS a hormonal disorder that helped me be fat.

So - whose fault was that? Mine? My mother's? Believe me we both were given way too much guilt for being the cause of my weight.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Actually they are not the same thing at all.

A malnourished child has been denied food by the parents or guardians.

A child suffering from anorexia does not eat by his or her own choice.

Anorexia is not the same thing as starving a child.

This really is NOT about fat bigotry, it's about an eight year old who has not been properly cared for. Even if starved and beaten kids WERE routinely left with abusive parents, should we leave a 218 pound 8 year old with a neglectful parent just to prove a point?


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm not a social worker, but I don't think "bruised and battered" children are routinely left in the care of suspected abusers.
> .



Sadly, children are often returned into the care of their abusers, even when there is continued evidence of abuse. Google Nixzmary Brown.

(This post is an aside and not intended as a response to the ongoing debate about obese children.)


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

TraciJo67 said:


> In the case we're currently discussing, the child cannot walk because he is too obese to do so. This isn't assumption; it is documented fact. The child is 4 times the size of most comparable 8-year-olds.
> 
> Honestly, I don't understand why this is being made into a size acceptance issue. It appears to be a very clear-cut case of neglect on the part of the mother .... who is allowing herself to be bullied by her child.



Because it is a size rights issue. Until this child is tested for everything under the sun and given a clean bill of health this is an issue of discrimination based on weight. If this child was underweight do you think this much publicity would be happening????? No.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Because it is a size rights issue. Until this child is tested for everything under the sun and given a clean bill of health this is an issue of discrimination based on weight. If this child was underweight do you think this much publicity would be happening????? No.



So should we test otherwise abused children for everything under the sun? Make sure their balance is alright. They could have just fallen down the stairs, you know, multiple times.

Also, we don't NEED to test him for everything under the sun. We know why he is fat. He eats junk food, all the time. Every 20 minutes, in fact, as noted in the article. It's no mystery why he is 200lbs. Stop ignoring the evidence to promote a cause.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Because it is a size rights issue. Until this child is tested for everything under the sun and given a clean bill of health this is an issue of discrimination based on weight. If this child was underweight do you think this much publicity would be happening????? No.



Are you seriously willing to sacrifice the well being of an eight year old in the name of size acceptance? 

And what if *some* authority had recognized when you were a child that you must have some health issue that caused your weight? What if the issue were somehow forced by somebody who saw to it that you found a proper medical diagnosis to find PCOS. Would your life have been worse or better?


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> If this child was underweight do you think this much publicity would be happening????? No.



To be fair, there have been a number of high-profile cases in NYC surrounding children who were starved by their parents. Google Nadine Lockwood.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> So should we test otherwise abused children for everything under the sun? Make sure their balance is alright. They could have just fallen down the stairs, you know, multiple times.



Yes. That would make a hell of a lot more sense than just letting them go home to a potentially deadly home and doing nothing. What if the child did fall down a flight of stairs due to an inner ear problem? Don't you think the parents would like to know that??? I would.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> Sadly, children are often returned into the care of their abusers, even when there is continued evidence of abuse. Google Nixzmary Brown.
> 
> (This post is an aside and not intended as a response to the ongoing debate about obese children.)



I remember that case, yes. It was tragic. and all the other children return to their abusers is tragic.


However, now a child IS being removed from an abusive/unhealthy living situation. Why stop it? Because it's "contradictory" to size acceptence? This isn't a size acceptance issue. This is an abuse issue. We know why he is fat, and what enables him to be this way. In fact, it is hindering greatly his quality of life. This isn't a blow to all fat people.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Yes. That would make a hell of a lot more sense than just letting them go home to a potentially deadly home and doing nothing. What if the child did fall down a flight of stairs due to an inner ear problem? Don't you think the parents would like to know that??? I would.



Yes. But as has been pointed out over and over and over, this kid won't eat fruit and is eating processed junk food every 20 minutes. That is a health problem. Maybe it is caused by a medical condition, but clearly the mother has not taken the initiative to find out. This did not happen over the course of an hour, it's clearly an ongoing issue.

When an 8 year old is quadruple normal size and has diminished mobility and the mother has not fixed it, the authorities need to step in.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Are you seriously willing to sacrifice the well being of an eight year old in the name of size acceptance?
> 
> And what if *some* authority had recognized when you were a child that you must have some health issue that caused your weight? What if the issue were somehow forced by somebody who saw to it that you found a proper medical diagnosis to find PCOS. Would your life have been worse or better?




I am not talking about sacrificing a childs well being for size acceptance. Where did I say that? I am saying let's find out if this child has a medical reason for being obese - first. Taking this child away from his mom at this age could do irreversible psychological damage. 

And as for your second question. You are assuming my life wasn't wonderful at my size. And if it wasn't you are still assuming being thin would have made it better. That's a very dangerous assumption to make.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes. But as has been pointed out over and over and over, this kid won't eat fruit and is eating processed junk food every 20 minutes. That is a health problem. Maybe it is caused by a medical condition, but clearly the mother has not taken the initiative to find out. This did not happen over the course of an hour, it's clearly an ongoing issue.
> 
> When an 8 year old is quadruple normal size and has diminished mobility and the mother has not fixed it, the authorities need to step in.



Listen - kids eat crap. I grew up with a girl who was a size 5 and stil is. She never eats anything green. Eats junk food all the time and never gains an ounce. I know her well - she is not a bulimic. So I guess she's a medical marvel??

There is no reason to take this child out of his home.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I am not talking about sacrificing a childs well being for size acceptance. Where did I say that? I am saying let's find out if this child has a medical reason for being obese - first. Taking this child away from his mom at this age could do irreversible psychological damage.
> 
> And as for your second question. You are assuming my life wasn't wonderful at my size. And if it wasn't you are still assuming being thin would have made it better. That's a very dangerous assumption to make.



If your life was wonderful, that's great. My point was you said you had an undiagnosed medical issue. I just pointed out that a diagnosed and treated illness tends to cause less stress than an undiagnosed and untreated one.

Considering this child is missing school and being teased and having trouble moving? I think some damage is setting in already.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> I remember that case, yes. It was tragic. and all the other children return to their abusers is tragic.
> 
> 
> However, now a child IS being removed from an abusive/unhealthy living situation. Why stop it? Because it's "contradictory" to size acceptence? This isn't a size acceptance issue. This is an abuse issue. We know why he is fat, and what enables him to be this way. In fact, it is hindering greatly his quality of life. This isn't a blow to all fat people.




This is not an abuse issue unless and until it is determined that his weight is NOT due to a medical disorder.

This is not a Fascist country - or is it???


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> If your life was wonderful, that's great. My point was you said you had an undiagnosed medical issue. I just pointed out that a diagnosed and treated illness tends to cause less stress than an undiagnosed and untreated one.
> 
> Considering this child is missing school and being teased and having trouble moving? I think some damage is setting in already.




I was teased mercilously. Yes, I was damaged by it. Should I have been taken away from my home????????


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> Nice loaded terminology again. Also, Godwin's Law. Is making smokers go outside lifestyle Nazism?



Yes, it is. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the common colloquial term "lifestyle Nazism"?

Godwin's Law has nothing to do with that term--talk about a "loaded response"! LOL! 



love dubh said:


> What about emissions requirements for automobiles? Laws prohibiting driving while talking on a cell phone? Those pesky seatbelt laws? How about that damnable policy penalizing me for driving over the speedlimit? How about that whole car inspection nonsense? Why not just do away with it because it's an inconvenience, eh?



I'm against 3 out of 5 of those "pesky" laws as a matter of fact. Although I think they pale, in terms of meddling intrusion, by comparison to threatening to take away a mother's child because he is fat. 



love dubh said:


> You are ignoring an important and salient fact. *This kid does not eat normally*. He eats junk food. It is his diet that is affecting his quality of life.



Says who? The chuckleheaded morons in the media? Where's the proof? It's someone's opinion.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> This is not an abuse issue unless and until it is determined that his weight is NOT due to a medical disorder.
> 
> This is not a Fascist country - or is it???



Stop crying "fascism" whenever authorities want to step in. It's such a cop-out. We know why this kid is obese. We know what he is malnourished, that his mother will not make him eat his greens, and that such treatment has lead to his obesity. He MAY HAVE a metabolic or glandular disorder, that may be a work here. However, we KNOW that what IS at work is his eating habits, which are fully in the control of his parents.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie, arguing with you is pointless. You refuse to admit that a 218 pound 8 year old has something wrong with him, and you're sure that everything under the sun is wrapped up in size bigotry.

It's not the case, but nobody is going to convince you otherwise, so i'm not going to continue this silly merry go round with you.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Yes, it is. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the common colloquial term "lifestyle Nazism"?
> 
> Godwin's Law has nothing to do with that term--talk about a "loaded response"! LOL!
> 
> ...



You're right. It's just the moronic media's stupid ill informed opinion that processed, fried junk food is bad for you and fruits and veggies are healthful. It's all part of the vast anti-fat conspiracy.

The proof of there being something wrong is in an 8 year old boy whose mobility has been compromised and who is missing school. That's the tragedy. If you want to go on believing that eating crap and not exercising might still be ok, healthwise, go ahead.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Says who? The chuckleheaded morons in the media? Where's the proof? It's someone's opinion.



If by "someone's opinion," you mean *his own mother.*



> Ms McKeown, 35, told the BBC: "Connor had a mouthful of apple once and he didn't like it.
> 
> "He refuses to eat fruit, vegetables and salads - he has processed foods.
> *
> ...



She hasn't "got" to give him what he likes. She's his damned mother; if he chooses not to eat, he can go hungry. Chances are, he will eat what he is given eventually. She knows what is good for him, and will not give it to him because it inconveniences her. She wants to be her child's friend and not his caretaker.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Sandie, arguing with you is pointless. You refuse to admit that a 218 pound 8 year old has something wrong with him, and you're sure that everything under the sun is wrapped up in size bigotry.
> 
> It's not the case, but nobody is going to convince you otherwise, so i'm not going to continue this silly merry go round with you.





You don't know me well enough to make that assumption. I'm sure everything under the sun is wrapped up in size bigotry? Show me where I have said that anywhere???

My opinion is just different than yours. So?

I said there could very well be something wrong with this child, But I do not believe the first solution is to take the child out of the home. And I never will.

You want me to agree with you - that aint gonna happen.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

WTF kind of nonsense is it to say what an eight year old will or won't do? Eight year old children should be eating what's put in front of them. And they will do so rather than starve.

If he doesn't like apples, mom can buy pears, or oranges, or bananas, or something else. If he eats processed food it's because she buys and gives them to him.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> Stop crying "fascism" whenever authorities want to step in. It's such a cop-out. We know why this kid is obese. We know what he is malnourished, that his mother will not make him eat his greens, and that such treatment has lead to his obesity. He MAY HAVE a metabolic or glandular disorder, that may be a work here. However, we KNOW that what IS at work is his eating habits, which are fully in the control of his parents.




IF in a supposed free country authoriies can step in and take a child out of a home with no good reason - except an assumption. Yes - that is Fascism.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

This child's weight is causing him health problems, yet to intervene by taking him away from an unhealthy household and giving him a lifestyle regimin that makes him lose weight is wrong? 

That's like saying persecuting male pedophiles who prey on little boys is homophobic and affront to the LGBTQ community.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> This child's weight is causing him health problems, yet to intervene by taking him away from an unhealthy household and giving him a lifestyle regimin that makes him lose weight is wrong?
> 
> That's like saying persecuting male pedophiles who prey on little boys is homophobic and affront to the LGBTQ community.



Helping him and his mother is not wrong. Taking him out of the home is wrong.

And your second point is ridiculous. And highly offensive being a child who was abused by a pedophile.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Helping him and his mother is not wrong. Taking him out of the home is wrong.
> 
> And your second point is ridiculous. And highly offensive being a child who was abused by a pedophile.



Her point was not ridiculous. She was drawing the analogy between saying that it's an afront to size acceptance to remove this child from his parent's care (which, as we've stated, has not actually happened yet.) and potentially saying it's an affront to gay rights to attack male pedophiles for preying on young boys.

According to the news accounts, the authorities have tried and failed to help him and his mother. Given how sick he clearly is, they are talking about more drastic measures.

Your personal backstory is not the issue here.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> WTF kind of nonsense is it to say what an eight year old will or won't do? Eight year old children should be eating what's put in front of them. And they will do so rather than starve.
> 
> If he doesn't like apples, mom can buy pears, or oranges, or bananas, or something else. If he eats processed food it's because she buys and gives them to him.




Do you have children?? Because your first point made me laugh. Do you know how many children go through stages of only eating one thing - like peanut butter and nothing else?? When we were kids my sister would eat nothing but sweets. She would refuse to eat anything put in front of her until my mother (out of frustration) gave her a cookie or some such thing.

My sister never ate well - she only eats junk food. She's the thin one. Maybe I'm wrong for eating healthy?


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Helping him and his mother is not wrong. Taking him out of the home is wrong.
> 
> And your second point is ridiculous. And highly offensive being a child who was abused by a pedophile.



It's a point to show how absurd this entire argument is. 

The plaintiffs here are saying that intervening in cases of obesity is wrong and discrminatory. 

The defense (me, LoveBHMS, TraciJo) are saying that, no, this is a SPECIFIC case of child abuse where the MANIFESTATION of the abuse is obesity. 

Whereas, pedophila is child abuse, and the manifestation is an *unlawful homosexual act between an adult and a child.* Just like rape is an offense, and consensual sex is not.

In both cases, it is the manifestation of the abuse in the SPECIFIC CASE that is targeted and vilified, not the manifestation (obesity in general and consensual homosexual sexual encounters in general).


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Her point was not ridiculous. She was drawing the analogy between saying that it's an afront to size acceptance to remove this child from his parent's care (which, as we've stated, has not actually happened yet.) and potentially saying it's an affront to gay rights to attack male pedophiles for preying on young boys.
> 
> According to the news accounts, the authorities have tried and failed to help him and his mother. Given how sick he clearly is, they are talking about more drastic measures.
> 
> Your personal backstory is not the issue here.




No what she is doing is making a reactionary point. Trying to illicit a repulse reaction.

And second what does gay rights have to do with pedophelia?? 95% of all pedophiles are straight men. 

My personal back story is relavent on so many levels.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

when did this become a legal debate?? LOL

And you are equating childhood obesity with childhood sexual and physical abuse. I find that offensive and an insult to all fat people.






love dubh said:


> It's a point to show how absurd this entire argument is.
> 
> The plaintiffs here are saying that intervening in cases of obesity is wrong and discrminatory.
> 
> ...


----------



## butch (Dec 26, 2007)

If you want to see what happens when a child is taken away from their family because of their size, google 'Anamarie Regino' and/or 'Anamarie Martinez-Regino.' 

This is why those of us involved in fat rights are less than willing to grant the media and the governmental authorities carte blanche to make claims about the health of fat children. 

I'm not backing any horse in this race, btw, but I think Anamarie's case reminds us all that no case of this kind is completely free of fat-bias, since we live in a culture saturated with anti-fat bias. I hope Conor finds a way to improve his fitness, and wouldn't it be nice if maybe the authorities called in some HAES health care professionals, to help create a plan that minimizes fat stigma and maximizes good health for Conor and the rest of his family?


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> when did this become a legal debate?? LOL
> 
> And you are equating childhood obesity with childhood sexual and physical abuse. I find that offensive and an insult to all fat people.



Don't be so obtuse. As I explicitly stated, it's the manifestation of his abuse as obesity that I am equating with childhood sexual abuse, not childhood obesity in general. Nice job putting words in my mouth.

Legal debates are debates. This is a debate. The only way to get a point across without being misconstrued (which you have masterfully done, anyway. I tip my hat to you.) is to be clear as crystal with definitions.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

love dubh said:


> You're blind. As I explicitly stated, it's the manifestation of his abuse as obesity that I am equating with childhood sexual abuse.
> 
> Legal debates are debates. This is a debate. The only way to get a point across without being misconstrued (which you have masterfully done, anyway. I tip my hat to you.) is to be clear as crystal with definitions.



Ah so here come the personal insults because you cannot change my mind.

And I say again childhood sexual abuse and childhood obesity are not the same thing. I know - I experienced both.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

butch said:


> If you want to see what happens when a child is taken away from their family because of their size, google 'Anamarie Regino' and/or 'Anamarie Martinez-Regino.'
> 
> This is why those of us involved in fat rights are less than willing to grant the media and the governmental authorities carte blanche to make claims about the health of fat children.
> 
> I'm not backing any horse in this race, btw, but I think Anamarie's case reminds us all that no case of this kind is completely free of fat-bias, since we live in a culture saturated with anti-fat bias. I hope Conor finds a way to improve his fitness, and wouldn't it be nice if maybe the authorities called in some HAES health care professionals, to help create a plan that minimizes fat stigma and maximizes good health for Conor and the rest of his family?



The authorities are not making random health claims here based on the kid's size.

The child CAN.NOT.WALK. What part of that is supposed to get lost in size acceptance?

This is about this child's health and parenting. When the parents of an eight year old say "he just doesn't like apples he only wants junk" and they indulge him, it's a problem.

Additionally, if you read the news reports, the authorities have tried to work with the mother to no avail.

When an eight year old child can't walk for 7 minutes, where is it about anti fat bias? It's NOT.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Ah so here come the personal insults because you cannot change my mind.
> 
> And I say again childhood sexual abuse and childhood obesity are not the same thing. I know - I experienced both.



This.
Is.
Not.
About.
You.

This is not about you, Sandie.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> This.
> Is.
> Not.
> About.
> ...



I thought you were done arguing with me???

You need to hear this:

MY
EXPERIENCES
ARE
RELATIVE
BECAUSE
I 
HAVE 
BEEN
THERE!!!

OK? Got it??? Do I have to post phonetically for you??

Now I have other things to do. But thank you for taking an interesting debate and turning into an insult fest.

If you can't take the heat - stay out of the fire babe.

Nite.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

Reasoning isn't working. Bowing out. Later!


----------



## Suze (Dec 26, 2007)

I have nothing more to add that haven't already been said. But I hole heartedly agree with love dubh and LoveBHMS. Anything else would be stupid.

Some of the opinions her are highly disturbing :blink:


----------



## butch (Dec 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> The authorities are not making random health claims here based on the kid's size.
> 
> The child CAN.NOT.WALK. What part of that is supposed to get lost in size acceptance?
> 
> ...




The same rhetoric was at play in Anamarie's case, and when she was taken away, she didn't lose weight. Right before she was taken away by the authorities, she was on a doctor administered 550 calorie a day diet. Her parents did everything they were told to do by medical authorities, and she did not lose weight. She has since lost a small amount of weight, but is still a very large girl for her age.

I didn't criticize anyone's opinion on here, I just pointed out that this has not worked in the past-taking a fat child away from their parents (and Anamarie was probably fatter at age 3, in terms of body fat percentage, than Conor is at age 8), and suggested that all of us are not getting all the information possible, because none of us are intimately involved in this case. No media report is 100% objective, about ANY topic, fat or not. If we care about this child's health, then whats wrong with an HAES approach, which is about healthy food choices and increased physical activity without the fixation on numbers and stigmitizing fat? For all we know, Conor, like many other children of smaller size, will eventually decrease his body fat percentage as he matures. Following an HAES approach, he may then avoid the psychological damage that can sometimes happen when one is bombarded with anti-fat messages during childhood. Even the biggest promoters of an end to 'the obesity epidemic' list psychological problems as one of the main diseases related to obesity.

If nothing else, reading about her case will help bolster your arguments about how you view this situation, as this isn't the only case of its kind to ever happen in the UK or the US. I'm just giving you all food for thought, as I don't have any desire to get into an argument because I know I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine.


----------



## k1009 (Dec 26, 2007)

Hey, hey, Sandie's back! Did I miss the return post? Good to see you again!

I've two relatives in this position. I hate it more than anything. I see them missing out on the things that made my childhood so wonderful and want to bang my head against a wall it frustrates me so much. You know, since we're bringing personal experiences into this discussion.

Ok, what bothers me is that we're comparing a child's experience with obesity to that of an adult's. We won't even let children take smaller doses of many adult tested drugs (in line with their smaller body sizes) and yet we're willing to apply contradictory findings about body size and the cause of obesity to extreme cases such as this one? It's just not right. Everything points to this poor boy suffering through parental neglect yet his case should be a rallying point for size activists? 

It's just not fair to the child, who should be the only concern here.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 26, 2007)

Fascinita said:


> If the child's health continues to suffer due to the mother's explicit neglect in following through with a case plan, and it can be documented that he would be better off in another home, then you'd have grounds to take him away from her I think.
> 
> Now here's my question to you: What happens if she does follow through with documented steps to stick to the case plan, and he does not lose weight? In other words, if there is some sort of condition that he suffers from?
> 
> Also, what do we do about parents who feed their kids junk, even if their kids are not overweight? I know of at least two kids who are growing up eating nothing but processed and junk food, but they remain thin. They may be able to walk around, but what kind of harm is the all-junk diet doing them? Or is it only neglectful when the kids get fat?



The kid is 8 years old and he didn't get in his condition overnight, I think that a case of neglect is pretty clear. Parents are supposed to parent, not try to be their kids best friend, they are supposed to say NO every now and then. Also, I dont think its only about what she's feeding him, he could have got equally as unhealthy eating the basic food groups. Its also about quantity of food and lack of physical activity.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Kate for the win.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Because it is a size rights issue. Until this child is tested for everything under the sun and given a clean bill of health this is an issue of discrimination based on weight. If this child was underweight do you think this much publicity would be happening????? No.



Sandie, did you invest even 2 minutes of your time into RESEARCHING this ACTUAL CASE before making such generalizations? A few things:

1). Connor was not taken from his family. Connor remained, and remains, with his mother. He was NEVER TAKEN AWAY. The professionals who were involved with his case have been quoted as saying that removing him from his home would be a LAST RESORT. 

2). Connor lost 1 1/2 stone in two months (about 22 pounds), due to an exercise regime & swapping his normal junk food for healthier alternatives. If a serious metabolic disorder were at issue here, he would not have lost such a dramatic amount of weight in such a short period of time -- due only to lifestyle changes.

3). Connor's mother acknowledged that she allows him to eat whatever he wants; she listed his dietary intake (SHE LISTED IT, not the news media) as primarily junk food. She also acknowledged that he snacks on chips & cookies & other high-calorie, low-nutrition value junk food ... every 20 minutes.

4). Connor's mother blames his doctors & other professionals for his condition -- but she has repeatedly missed appointments with nurses, nutritionists, and social workers. This doesn't speak too highly of her motivation level.

We'll probably never know the full medical scope of Connor's condition, due to data privacy laws (and if he is suffering from a rare disorder or metabolic condition, his mother isn't sharing that ... interesting, given how she's been thrust out into the media spotlight as an abusive parent & such information might cast her in a more forgiving light). 

This is a well-documented case of a mother allowing her 8-year-old son to run ramshod over her. It's a form of abuse, in that Connor is far too young to be making these decisions for himself. He can't possibly understand the long-term effects of such choices. His mother has made several incredibly ignorant statements about his diet, and about how helpless she feels ... obviously, she was in need of support and education about parenting skills, boundaries, and proper nutrition for her son.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 26, 2007)

Ella Bella said:


> The kid is 8 years old and he didn't get in his condition overnight, I think that a case of neglect is pretty clear. Parents are supposed to parent, not try to be their kids best friend, they are supposed to say NO every now and then. Also, I dont think its only about what she's feeding him, he could have got equally as unhealthy eating the basic food groups. Its also about quantity of food and lack of physical activity.



Hey.

You know whose opinion might be super valuable here? 

Somebody who is both plus sized and a parent.

I wonder if anyone who fits that description is going to read this thread.

Man...that would be so great.

I think THAT person's take on this would be really relevent.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 26, 2007)

TraciJo, for the win!


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Ah so here come the personal insults because you cannot change my mind.
> 
> And I say again childhood sexual abuse and childhood obesity are not the same thing. I know - I experienced both.



I don't think she's saying that the two are the same thing, but rather that those cases where that kind of abuse is existent, can be compared on a level that is neglectful, if not abuse.

Like (And this is me trying to summarize was Dubh said): Having an obese child is not child abuse. Feeding/Starving your child x of which physical changes are apparent because of it, is abuse.
The mother isn't exercising the authority she's suppose to have, in my opinion. You can replace this situation with a bunch of different stimuli, and it can end up the same way.

I don't know if this can really be considered a Size Acceptance issue really either. The weight might be being used as a proxy for what is happening, but they've already assessed something that can correlate, if not be the cause of what has happened. They aren't directly focusing on the weight, but rather what's happening, such as his love for processed junk, and dislike for healthier foods. That to me (Should he not have any disorders/diseases that are have resulted in his response to food) is an alarm again that regardless if this is food, guns, or video games, that the mother should be doing something. I mean, she did say:
"He refuses to eat fruit, vegetables and salads - he has processed foods.

"When Connor won't eat anything else, I've got to give him the foods he likes.

"I can't starve him."

I can replace that with any object or thing that might not be a good choice depending on what the parents, or even what you think.

"I can't take the games away from him."

"He won't do his homework. All he wants to do is play video games all day. He misses school, doesn't sleep well, and doesn't exercise because he's obsessed." Et cetera et cetera...

We of course can live without games/video games for example, but just like video games, you've got to have variety! 
And it would be beneficial if a portion of this was neutral, if not positive for ones health. Like Def Jam Vendetta and Halo: Halo is good for the soul. Def Jam releases stress with bodyslam goodness (And realistic bone breaking sounds... mmmm... ).

And any child can be hit by the same thing too. I used to be "Overweight" by BMI, but I was always active. I had some body issues, but one of the reasons I got over it after time was the fact that I was a *lot* fitter than some of my counterparts at the time. Some of them smoked and drank on the side for example, but their perceptions changed a lot, even though they were always thinner than me. I didn't have to lose weight for that to work though: I had to keep working hard.

" Ain't no half steppin' "  

I don't even want to really use health as a crutch either, but rather that instead of generalizing this child, they've directly peered into what's happening. Again, he could have a disorder, but that eating is already there too. I think that's what they are trying to check, moreso than his weight.
Think about this:

There's a lot of psychological disorders of which there's a high correlation between getting one a child abuse. Is it offensive for a psychologist to ask a patient "Were you abused as a child?"

I think you would have every right to get mad, and attack this article if they didn't truly know, but the mother has already admitted that she's giving in. If she wasn't, and they were just being dicks by making an assumption, then I think you most definitely would have a huge Size Rights attack point to work with.

I believe you said that you don't want the child to be taken out of the home, but would you have a problem with them forcing/advocating major changes in the foods eaten, and adding exercise in the mix*?

*Not a size issue again. My sisters former friend that graduated a term ago got out of a breath after they walked around the peer. She's thinner than my sister at the same height. The reason she couldn't do it is because she *doesn't exercise period.*


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 26, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Do you have children?? Because your first point made me laugh. Do you know how many children go through stages of only eating one thing - like peanut butter and nothing else?? When we were kids my sister would eat nothing but sweets. She would refuse to eat anything put in front of her until my mother (out of frustration) gave her a cookie or some such thing.
> 
> My sister never ate well - she only eats junk food. She's the thin one. Maybe I'm wrong for eating healthy?



I have kids, and yes kids do go through stages of only wanting to eat one thing but wanting is the key word here. My children eat what I put in front of them or they skip a meal. For the next meal I make the same exact thing that they refused the meal before. I've only had to do it once with each kid. I'm a mom, I cook what is best for them. I dont run a diner so I dont take orders. 

I allow them to tell me that they dont like something, but they have to at least let me see that they've been willing to try it. My son absolutely HATES tomatoes but whenever I make a salad I always sneak in a couple. Sometimes he eats them, othertimes he doesn't. 

I think that away from home is the best place for this kid to learn some healthy eating habits. While he's away from home the mom might be able to take part in some parenting classes as well as some nutrition classes. Hopefully they will be able to be reunited and continue on to lead healthy, happy lives.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 26, 2007)

Ella Bella said:


> I have kids, and yes kids do go through stages of only wanting to eat one thing but wanting is the key word here. My children eat what I put in front of them or they skip a meal. For the next meal I make the same exact thing that they refused the meal before. I've only had to do it once with each kid. I'm a mom, *I cook what is best for them. I dont run a diner so I dont take orders. *
> I allow them to tell me that they dont like something, but they have to at least let me see that they've been willing to try it. My son absolutely HATES tomatoes but whenever I make a salad I always sneak in a couple. Sometimes he eats them, othertimes he doesn't.
> 
> I think that away from home is the best place for this kid to learn some healthy eating habits. While he's away from home the mom might be able to take part in some parenting classes as well as some nutrition classes. Hopefully they will be able to be reunited and continue on to lead healthy, happy lives.



This was my parent's philosophy too, and it will be mine as well. I'm not my child's friend, I am his mother, and I have responsibilities to look after his well being.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 26, 2007)

For those people that think this issue is about size acceptance.

1. Do you have children? Someone who's well being is totally and completely in your hands?

2. If this was a case of a child who refused to eat (it happens) and was so thin that his/her health was compromised would you be against removing the child from the home if that was what needed to be done to help improve their health?

3. How about parents who refuse to seek medical attention for their children based on their religious beliefs? Should we not remove those children from a situation that could possibly endanger their lives?

This child not being able to walk for 7 minutes IS an issue. An 8 year old (even fat 8 year olds) should be out riding bikes, kicking soccer balls, playing tag, all kinds of activities that get his blood pumping. That is good for his physical AND mental health. This mom has to wake up and see that she's not doing the right thing by her son by allowing him to eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants it. Little Connor wants some potato chips? Tough, offer him an apple. If he doesn't want the apple then he doesn't get anything. A kid isn't gonna starve by missing some chips here and there. Dont want to hear your kid throw a fit? Don't be a parent. Simple as that...


----------



## Sandie S-R (Dec 26, 2007)

butch said:


> If you want to see what happens when a child is taken away from their family because of their size, google 'Anamarie Regino' and/or 'Anamarie Martinez-Regino.'
> 
> This is why those of us involved in fat rights are less than willing to grant the media and the governmental authorities carte blanche to make claims about the health of fat children.
> 
> I'm not backing any horse in this race, btw, but I think Anamarie's case reminds us all that no case of this kind is completely free of fat-bias, since we live in a culture saturated with anti-fat bias. I hope Conor finds a way to improve his fitness, and wouldn't it be nice if maybe the authorities called in some HAES health care professionals, to help create a plan that minimizes fat stigma and maximizes good health for Conor and the rest of his family?



Butch, my dear, I can't rep you again, because I repped you recently, and probably would rep you about 10 times a day if I could. 

Brilliant, clear and succinct. You are the voice of reason in this heated debate, and hopefully the authorities will opt for a middle of the road approach such as you suggest.


----------



## Keb (Dec 26, 2007)

Good parents can still wind up with a fat kid. Mine did. My mother gave us a healthy variety of foods, made us play outside, took us camping and sledding and swimming, etc etc. My brother wound up skinny as a rail (probably in part due to other health problems) and my sister wound up quite athletic. And I, the eldest, was first labeled overweight at age 7 (about the time my sister was born, actually). 

Getting taller didn't make me thinner. Walking around campus at my university didn't--in fact, I think I gained weight from the commons food. Working full time chasing toddlers might have got off the freshman fifteen, but I didn't lose any sizes. Changing my diet and my environment 100% by moving to Japan for two years? No noticable difference. I'm still wearing clothes I wore a good 7-10 years ago, and I'm only 27.

I don't believe "dieting" is healthy, so I haven't dabbled in that. But given my track record so far, I don't think it would make a discernable difference; I've changed my daily routines and diets drastically so many times just from life circumstances since I was 7 without any obvious effect. 

To come back from my tangent, my parents did try to get me to eat healthy and be active. I was still a fat child, a fat teenager, and a fat twenty-something. I never let it stop me from trying things I wanted to try, and I don't blame my parents at all. Taking me away from my family would probably have been the most abusive thing anyone could do to me as a child, and there's no way I would have lost weight under the emotional distress it would have placed on me.


----------



## Mabus (Dec 26, 2007)

While I don't feel qualified to comment on the case, I think that it should not have received media attention: or at least not the international spotlight. This should have been a private matter but it was turned into a media circus and will no doubt be used by anti-fat people as ammunition against general size acceptance arguments for some time to come when in fact it has little to do with that issue.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 26, 2007)

Keb said:


> Good parents can still wind up with a fat kid. Mine did. My mother gave us a healthy variety of foods, made us play outside, took us camping and sledding and swimming, etc etc. My brother wound up skinny as a rail (probably in part due to other health problems) and my sister wound up quite athletic. And I, the eldest, was first labeled overweight at age 7 (about the time my sister was born, actually).
> 
> To come back from my tangent, my parents did try to get me to eat healthy and be active. I was still a fat child, a fat teenager, and a fat twenty-something. I never let it stop me from trying things I wanted to try, and I don't blame my parents at all. Taking me away from my family would probably have been the most abusive thing anyone could do to me as a child, and there's no way I would have lost weight under the emotional distress it would have placed on me.



But, did your parents let you eat what you wanted to eat when you wanted to eat it? Parents are supposed to look after the health and well being of their children. This lady, it seems to me isn't doing that. She's taking the easy way out, and there's just not anything easy about being a parent. 

Sometimes its hard to say no, its hard to know that your not giving the person you love most in the world what they want. Wanting and needing though, those are two very different things and its the job of a parent to know which one to give at which time.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 26, 2007)

butch said:


> The same rhetoric was at play in Anamarie's case, and when she was taken away, she didn't lose weight. Right before she was taken away by the authorities, she was on a doctor administered 550 calorie a day diet. Her parents did everything they were told to do by medical authorities, and she did not lose weight. She has since lost a small amount of weight, but is still a very large girl for her age.




Of course, because you only get so large on a diet of "junk food". A child three or four times the weight of an ordinary child has a serious metabolic imbalance. Dieting isn't going to make any difference.

This should be obvious to the boosters of the cradle-to-grave Nanny State who like the idea of government interference in peoples' lifestyles, but it isn't.


----------



## Keb (Dec 26, 2007)

They definitely did not...I learned early on to ration my Halloween Candy so it would last until Christmas, and Christmas candy till Easter, because I didn't get much between times. I actually prefer water to soda and always have. Chips and cookies were fairly rare when I was young, too. Most of our meals at home were actually homecooked. And even with all that, I wound up fat. I don't know why, and I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to ask a doctor when I was growing up why...or for the doctor to even wonder, since apparently they assumed I was living on McDonald's based on what they told my mother. (In my seven-year-old presence they told her I wasn't allowed to have a happy meal more than once a week; I immediately informed my mother that meant we had to go every week now!)

If I ever manage to get on a good health plan again, I just might ask if anyone -can- explain it to me, why I am the way I am. It would be nice to know, at any rate.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Of course, because you only get so large on a diet of "junk food". A child three or four times the weight of an ordinary child has a serious metabolic imbalance. Dieting isn't going to make any difference.
> 
> This should be obvious to the boosters of the cradle-to-grave Nanny State who like the idea of government interference in peoples' lifestyles, but it isn't.



It isn't a guarantee that Connor will lose weight, but you know damn well one of the tenets of the Size Acceptance movement is a well-balanced diet and exercise give health benefits to people of all sizes.

While some of the people that oppose what you're saying do want Connor to lose weight, that tenet must also be adhered to in the case that he does make changes.
At least that's my take on the thing: I don't expect Connor to lose weight, but I would expect after his diet is modified, and he starts getting more active to the point that he should be able to walk seven minutes to school.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 27, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> It isn't a guarantee that Connor will lose weight, but you know damn well one of the tenets of the Size Acceptance movement is a well-balanced diet and exercise give health benefits to people of all sizes.



I'm a strong advocate of both balanced diet and exercise, but not of authoritarianism or victimizing fat people. (Or their parents.)


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 27, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I'm a strong advocate of both balanced diet and exercise, but not of authoritarianism or victimizing fat people. (Or their parents.)



Well I know our society is going to take awhile to get the record for any child in a situation similar (A thin child would receive the same consequences from that living, and that's my point really: It's come down to diet), but what do you think should be done?


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Of course, because you only get so large on a diet of "junk food". A child three or four times the weight of an ordinary child has a serious metabolic imbalance. Dieting isn't going to make any difference.
> 
> This should be obvious to the boosters of the cradle-to-grave Nanny State who like the idea of government interference in peoples' lifestyles, but it isn't.



Btw, this may be the first nanny state reference of the thread; congratulations!


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 27, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> Well I know our society is going to take awhile to get the record for any child in a situation similar (A thin child would receive the same consequences from that living, and that's my point really: It's come down to diet), but what do you think should be done?



I think the kid probably would benefit from more aerobic activity. But that's a lifestyle choice, and unless there is serious evidence of child abuse (as in deliberate or wanton misconduct on the mother's part) the state should not get involved.

If the media wants to help, they can educate the public more about the health benefits of exercise.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Yes Traci I did. I am not as ignorant as you would like to assume.

One more time. Taking the child out of the home is not a solution. Helping him and his mother learn to eat healthy MAY help. There is no guarantee. 

I eat healthy - I rarely eat junk food. I'm still over 400 lbs.

(Oh wait this isn't about me so MY experience means nothing) 




TraciJo67 said:


> Sandie, did you invest even 2 minutes of your time into RESEARCHING this ACTUAL CASE before making such generalizations? A few things:
> 
> 1). Connor was not taken from his family. Connor remained, and remains, with his mother. He was NEVER TAKEN AWAY. The professionals who were involved with his case have been quoted as saying that removing him from his home would be a LAST RESORT.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mini (Dec 27, 2007)

I can't be bothered to read everything, so I'm gonna keep this simple:

This kid has a shitty mother, and it's fucking abuse. If you don't see that, fuck you, too, and never have kids.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Ella I am very happy you have children you can control. In my experience some kids can and do win the food battle that can go on. My sister would literaly sit for hours at the table refusing to eat. When that didn't work she would make herself throw up. How many days of that (yes days) do you think the average parent can handle before giving in?

But the issue for me is not what the kid is eating - that is a secondary issue. The real issue is that they want to remove the child from his home. This is a very slippery slope. Where does it stop?? When does mandatory weight loss surgery or you lose your insurance go into effect? And how many people who are not fat do you think are going to give a damn about what happens to fat people.

This poor child is in the middle of a much bigger issue.





Ella Bella said:


> I have kids, and yes kids do go through stages of only wanting to eat one thing but wanting is the key word here. My children eat what I put in front of them or they skip a meal. For the next meal I make the same exact thing that they refused the meal before. I've only had to do it once with each kid. I'm a mom, I cook what is best for them. I dont run a diner so I dont take orders.
> 
> I allow them to tell me that they dont like something, but they have to at least let me see that they've been willing to try it. My son absolutely HATES tomatoes but whenever I make a salad I always sneak in a couple. Sometimes he eats them, othertimes he doesn't.
> 
> I think that away from home is the best place for this kid to learn some healthy eating habits. While he's away from home the mom might be able to take part in some parenting classes as well as some nutrition classes. Hopefully they will be able to be reunited and continue on to lead healthy, happy lives.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Mini said:


> I can't be bothered to read everything, so I'm gonna keep this simple:
> 
> This kid has a shitty mother, and it's fucking abuse. If you don't see that, fuck you, too, and never have kids.



Thank you once again for a well thought out and intelligent post Mini. Honestly do you really think your behavior is cute or do you just not know any better???


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I'm a strong advocate of both balanced diet and exercise, but not of authoritarianism or victimizing fat people. (Or their parents.)




THANK YOU!!! I knew we saw eye to eye on this!


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Thank you once again for a well thought out and intelligent post Mini. Honestly do you really think your behavior is cute or do you just not know any better???



It's succinct.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

k1009 said:


> It's succinct.



So is a cluster fuck but I don't want to be a part of that either. I'm weird like that.


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> So is a cluster fuck but I don't want to be a part of that either. I'm weird like that.



Why do you take these posts so personally? You seem so angry at the world.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Ella I am very happy you have children you can control. In my experience some kids can and do win the food battle that can go on. My sister would literaly sit for hours at the table refusing to eat. When that didn't work she would make herself throw up. How many days of that (yes days) do you think the average parent can handle before giving in?
> 
> But the issue for me is not what the kid is eating - that is a secondary issue. The real issue is that they want to remove the child from his home. This is a very slippery slope. Where does it stop?? When does mandatory weight loss surgery or you lose your insurance go into effect? And how many people who are not fat do you think are going to give a damn about what happens to fat people.
> 
> This poor child is in the middle of a much bigger issue.




Its not about control Sandie, its about parenting. Some things kids shouldn't be given a choice about. Eating foods that are good for them should be one of those things. A kid who goes days without eating because they aren't getting what they want isn't is doing it because they can get away with it. Because they've been shown that all they have to do is throw a temper tantrum or just not eat for so long and mom or dad will give in. I do think that part of this boys problem is what he's eating, though as I said earlier that I think he could be just as unhealthy had he been eating "healthy" food. There are a number of problems at play here, he eats junk food, he eats every 20 min and because of this he can't walk for 7 min to school. Its just not ok to be 8 years old and be in that condition. Its not about size acceptance, its not about health care, or mandatory surgery, its about a 8 year old boy who's so unfit that he can't manage to walk for 7 min. To me, as a mother, that's scary. I dont think that this child should be permanently removed from his mother's home, I dont think she's abusive to him (I think she's neglected his best interests, and there is a difference) but I do think that they both stand to gain something very positive from him being removed for a short while. For Connor to be put in a place where his eating will be controlled, and for his mother to take some classes on healthy eating and just plain parenting. I dont think that MOM can learn what she needs to while her son is still living under her care. What good would it do to go to classes that say and apple is what Connor should have when its so much easier to give him what he wants to avoid the fit that he'll throw when she says no chips?


----------



## Mini (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Thank you once again for a well thought out and intelligent post Mini. Honestly do you really think your behavior is cute or do you just not know any better???



I could ask the same, Drama Queen.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 27, 2007)

TraciJo67 said:


> Sandie, did you invest even 2 minutes of your time into RESEARCHING this ACTUAL CASE before making such generalizations? A few things:
> 
> 1). Connor was not taken from his family. Connor remained, and remains, with his mother. He was NEVER TAKEN AWAY. The professionals who were involved with his case have been quoted as saying that removing him from his home would be a LAST RESORT.
> 
> ...



Your factoids--if true (and that isn't a slam against you, but the sources in question) suggest some degree of moderation in the process, but:

(a) This is still all about obesity and society's disapproval (and misunderstanding) of it; 

(b) Even the threat of taking the child away as a last resort is an abuse of power by the state.

The child was put on a diet and exercise program and lost 22 pounds; you cite this in support of the situation, but it also illustrates that his weight after the regimen was still 196 pounds. None of which the diet would probably keep off; the only important solution would be to increase the child's exercise output. 

And since very, very few adults--including slender ones--get any significant amount of exercise, day in, day out, it would be demanding that the child do something hardly anyone else in the mainstream does. 

And what's the reason? Because he's *fat*. You strip away everything else from this case, and it's about the child being *fat*. We have an entire western culture that eats too much junk food and doesn't exercise, but because the child is fat, and ONLY because he is fat, the mother who lets him do those same things is regarded as a child abuser.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Your factoids--if true (and that isn't a slam against you, but the sources in question) suggest some degree of moderation in the process, but:
> 
> (a) This is still all about obesity and society's disapproval (and misunderstanding) of it;
> 
> ...



She clearly said the child changed his eating and exercise habits for two months, not that he had changed them a year ago. If anyone makes a temporary change, he will get temporary results.



> The child was put on a diet and exercise program and lost 22 pounds; you cite this in support of the situation, but it also illustrates that his weight after the regimen was still 196 pounds. None of which the diet would probably keep off; the only important solution would be to increase the child's exercise output.



You don't know what would happen with an ongoing committment to not eating junk food and to exercising. Exercise is not something "out of the mainstream" and insisting a child get some is called good parenting, it's not some bizarre idea that puts your child out of the mainstream. If adults are not getting enough exercise, the answer is for them to START, not to not require this kid to do so.

What Western culture does or does not do is not the issue. This is not an adult, it's a small child who can't walk and who eats processed food every 20 minutes. A parent who allows that to happen needs correction.

My guess is that both Paul and Sandie know this. No person can see an eight year old with compromised health and mobility and see it as anything but sad. This really should not be a launching pad for the two of you to scream about anti fat bigotry.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Yes Traci I did. I am not as ignorant as you would like to assume.
> 
> One more time. Taking the child out of the home is not a solution. Helping him and his mother learn to eat healthy MAY help. There is no guarantee.
> 
> ...



Sandie, I didn't assume that you are ignorant; I assumed that you didn't read the particulars of Connor's case, and that you are making generalizations based on your personal experience. And by the way, I am not discounting that, either ... I'm just not sure how relevant it is to the situation we are currently discussing. Then again, there is a lot of validity in the point you made about it not being easy to ensure that our children are adequately nourished. My experience was very similar to what you've shared about your sister.

I have a stubborn streak a mile wide & three miles thick, and I am extremely resistant to being forced to do anything ... and I always have been. I was a finicky eater, and went through a phase in which all I wanted for breakfast, lunch & dinner was a peanut butter & cheese sandwich. My father was a Depression era survivor, who went hungry most of his young life. He believed that the abundance of food available to us was a luxury. We had some truly ferocious battles about my refusal to eat what was put in front of me ... and my response to his heavy-handed tactic was very similar to your sister's ... I simply refused to eat anything at all. I wasn't anorexic, nor did I have an eating disorder. I was just an incredibly stubborn and angry little girl, and if I couldn't control what was being placed in front of me, I could at least refuse to eat it. I won that battle ... after months of malnourishment, I begin to have health problems, and was diagnosed with severe iron deficiency anemia. My father relaxed his standards (slightly) and I learned to at least TRY different foods before turning my nose up at them.

In a round-about way, my point is this: You are right in that it's not always easy to control a child's diet. Short of tying me down and force-feeding me, there wasn't a thing my father could do to MAKE me eat deep fried squirrel/rabbit and rocky mountain oysters and all of the other naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasty stuff that he grew up with & therefore felt was good enough for his offspring. He knew that I wasn't eating properly. I can't even imagine how long this went on before I started having medical problems from lack of nutrition. Was it abuse? I think it was simple ignorance on his part ... there were strategies that would have worked with me, but force was never one of them. My situation was the converse of Connor's ... but similar in that two children were pretty much *RUNNING THE SHOW*. 

I do not believe that I should have been removed from my otherwise loving home, nor would I wish that on Connor. But ... if his mother refuses to follow the case plan set down by Connor's social worker, dietician & nurses ... (as evidenced in part by her refusal to even KEEP her appointments) ... and Connor's health continues to deteriorate ... what would you suggest? I'm serious, I'm not playing Devil's advocate; I'd REALLY like to know what you think should come next. The way that I feel about it is ... Connor isn't just "fat" ... he is extremely obese, to the point where it has compromised his health & affected his mobility. I don't believe that social services stepped in simply because Connor is (oh NOES) FAT. This is a child who was missing school because he lacked the endurance to walk a short distance. And this is about a mother who openly acknowledged that she was allowing her son to eat whatever he wanted, in whatever quantity, whenever he wanted. I just can't see this as anything BUT a form of child abuse. I would think the same exact thing if she were an otherwise decent mother, but allowed Connor to dictate his own 2 a.m. bedtime, and he therefore couldn't go to school because he was sleeping through the day.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> My guess is that both Paul and Sandie know this. No person can see an eight year old with compromised health and mobility and see it as anything but sad. This really should not be a launching pad for the two of you to scream about anti fat bigotry.



You just keep making assumptions that are WRONG!

I have said over and over here that helping this child is a priority - taking him out of his home is wrong. You seem to be unable or unwilling to see that. And whether you like it or not - this is a size rights issue. I have to ask - are you fat??

Anyone who can advocate taking this child out of his home clearly does not have the childs best interests in mind.

And one last thing. You keep saying the kid needs to be put on a diet. Us fat folk are products of dieting. Why would you advocate something that won't help him lose weight but will in fact lead to more weight gain??? 

I'm waiting for the first post advocating WLS for this child. I know it's coming.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And one last thing. You keep saying the kid needs to be put on a diet. Us fat folk are products of dieting. Why would you advocate something that won't help him lose weight but will in fact lead to more weight gain???
> 
> I'm waiting for the first post advocating WLS for this child. I know it's coming.



I don't advocate a diet, and based on what LoveBHMS has said in the past, I don't think she's pushing for that either. Connor needs lifestyle changes, that includes regimented exercise and healthy food choices. He's a child; nobody is saying that he shouldn't be allowed the occassional cookie or chocolate bar. But these things shouldn't be the mainstay of his dietary intake ... they should be SNACKS, and limited at that. 

One thing that always frustrates me is the notion that anything which suggests that people need to focus on healthy alternatives is automatically branded a diet. To me, a diet is a severe caloric restriction, and it is not useful, humane, or helpful ... it certainly contributed to my eventual yo-yo'ing to 300 pounds. 

I am slowly losing weight & focused on maintaining at 150 pounds. I watch my intake, make a concerted effort to get some exercise (and schedule it over my lunch hour to ensure that it happens), and do not indulge in a lot of high-calorie, sugary or carb-laden treats. I've been down that road before, and faced the consequences of my unchecked & out-of-control eating habits. This is a lifestyle change for me ... NOT a diet.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

TraciJo67 said:


> I do not believe that I should have been removed from my otherwise loving home, nor would I wish that on Connor. But ... if his mother refuses to follow the case plan set down by Connor's social worker, dietician & nurses ... (as evidenced in part by her refusal to even KEEP her appointments) ... and Connor's health continues to deteriorate ... what would you suggest? I'm serious, I'm not playing Devil's advocate; I'd REALLY like to know what you think should come next. The way that I feel about it is ... Connor isn't just "fat" ... he is extremely obese, to the point where it has compromised his health & affected his mobility. I don't believe that social services stepped in simply because Connor is (oh NOES) FAT. This is a child who was missing school because he lacked the endurance to walk a short distance. And this is about a mother who openly acknowledged that she was allowing her son to eat whatever he wanted, in whatever quantity, whenever he wanted. I just can't see this as anything BUT a form of child abuse. I would think the same exact thing if she were an otherwise decent mother, but allowed Connor to dictate his own 2 a.m. bedtime, and he therefore couldn't go to school because he was sleeping through the day.



Tracy there are many ways to abuse a child and while we might never agree about whether this is abuse we do agree on one thing. This FAMILY needs help. I have said that over and over. There are so many resources that could be used to help this family that taking this child out of his home shouldn't even be discussed. I also think there is a real possibility that this child has a physical reason why he is so fat. But that seems to be overlooked here. 

Social workers, nutritionists, trainers, etc could all be used in the home to help this family. Take the child out of the home - put him on an exercise/diet regimen. Force him to comply. He loses enough weight to be or normal size - put him back into his home - the same environment that created his weight to begin with. He gains all the weight back and then some. Michael Hebranko comes to mind as a perfect example of this. What was accomplished? And then what do they do? What was accomplished?

90% of diets fail. I do not think a diet is the solution here. Where does it stop?? Who decides how fat is too fat and when to remove someone from their home? Do we force teens to eat healthier or be taken away to forced fat camp? Do we force someone to have WLS because the company they work for is going to drop them off their insurace coverage if they don't? Do we create mandatory diet camps for adults?

This is a size rights issue. Make no mistake of that.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

TraciJo67 said:


> I don't advocate a diet, and based on what LoveBHMS has said in the past, I don't think she's pushing for that either. Connor needs lifestyle changes, that includes regimented exercise and healthy food choices. He's a child; nobody is saying that he shouldn't be allowed the occassional cookie or chocolate bar. But these things shouldn't be the mainstay of his dietary intake ... they should be SNACKS, and limited at that.



That's a diet Tracy no matter how you look at it.



> One thing that always frustrates me is the notion that anything which suggests that people need to focus on healthy alternatives is automatically branded a diet. To me, a diet is a severe caloric restriction, and it is not useful, humane, or helpful ... it certainly contributed to my eventual yo-yo'ing to 300 pounds.



No - that's not true in my case. I believe in eating healthy, but saying that is going to help this child lose weight simply is not true. (I'm an example but I won't say it). Do you know how many fat vegetarians there are out there? 



> I am slowly losing weight & focused on maintaining at 150 pounds. I watch my intake, make a concerted effort to get some exercise (and schedule it over my lunch hour to ensure that it happens), and do not indulge in a lot of high-calorie, sugary or carb-laden treats. I've been down that road before, and faced the consequences of my unchecked & out-of-control eating habits. This is a lifestyle change for me ... NOT a diet.



Big difference for you Tracy - you had WLS. And even after having WLS you have admitted to gaining weight back. So how on earth can you advocate something you know doesn't work?


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Mini said:


> I could ask the same, Drama Queen.



Oh, I would say you are the drama queen here Mini. And if I went around these boards telling people to *fuck off* I'd be flamed to high heaven, not told how cute I am.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

k1009 said:


> Why do you take these posts so personally? You seem so angry at the world.



*sigh*

for the 50 millionth time. I am not angry. No by a long shot. Mini is an offensive poster. And I'm blunt in my posts. Now if you should choose to continue to think I'n angry? I'm OK with that.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2007)

> I don't advocate a diet, and based on what LoveBHMS has said in the past, I don't think she's pushing for that either. Connor needs lifestyle changes, that includes regimented exercise and healthy food choices. He's a child; nobody is saying that he shouldn't be allowed the occassional cookie or chocolate bar. But these things shouldn't be the mainstay of his dietary intake ... they should be SNACKS, and limited at that.



Wow. It's almost like you read my posts or something.

Not eating junk food every twenty minutes is not a "diet". Exercising is not "out of the mainstream".

Sandie, the reason Traci said you clearly had not read up on this matter is that the available news reports say that social services had set up meetings with the child's mother to meet with nutritionists and health care workers. You keep ignoring that. The discussion of removing him from his mother's care is being discussed as a last resort because she hasn't used the resources that were made available.

Throughout this argument all you've done is attack everyone else and determine why they must be *wrong.* Considering that you are not a parent and both Ella and TraciJo are, I think their input has some value. Furthermore, you initially challenged me by saying I wasn't a parent, and then when parents got in the arguement, you switched tactics.

My size is really none of your business and it wouldn't affect my opinion anyway. If size determines if you're right or wrong, what do you do with Traci who has been both fat and thin? Which of her opinions matter, those she formed when she was 300 pounds or half that? Ella is plus sized and disagrees with you, Mini is thin and disagrees with you. It doesn't matter.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> *sigh*
> 
> for the 50 millionth time. I am not angry. No by a long shot. Mini is an offensive poster. And I'm blunt in my posts. Now if you should choose to continue to think I'n angry? I'm OK with that.



Mini is offensive.
Sandie is blunt.

Sandie is not angry dammit.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> That's a diet Tracy no matter how you look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sandie, I'm not going to go into my particulars (anymore than I already have) because they are irrelevent.

I did want to say something about a middle ground, though. When I see the above type of reasoning ... it makes me wonder ... what are you advocating? What are you *really* saying? Diets don't work ... and lifestyle changes are just a fancy way of saying "diet" ... is this about right? In that case, why bother trying to do *anything* to improve one's health? If Connor is removed from his home, and loses weight, only to return to the same dysfunctional environment that caused his weight gain ... why not just let him stay at 212 pounds ... then 220 ... 300 .... etc? Why, for that matter, should anyone attempt to make *any* changes? 

I do believe that the points you are trying to make have validity ... but in absence of any kind of reasonable alternative ... they are, to my way of thinking, severely flawed. Connor needed intervention; to me, that is very, very clear. It seems you agree to an extent -- your main point being that you apparently don't feel he should ever be removed from his home, if his out-of-control eating is the only factor in determining outside placement. Sandie, I know that you wouldn't agree to keep a sexually abused child in the same home with his/her tormentor. Why do you believe that Connor should be kept with a mother who clearly doesn't understand the nature of a healthy, nurturing relationship with her child? Who won't even be bothered to keep appointments with the professionals who are concerned about his health? I'm not suggesting that he be removed ... I am saying that it should definitely be kept open as an alternative, if his mother cannot or will not make the recommended changes, and Connor's health doesn't improve.


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Mini is offensive.
> Sandie is blunt.
> 
> Sandie is not angry dammit.



You'll have to forgive me. I'm following the same sort of DIET that Traci is (I mean, I exercised on Christmas Day and I really enjoyed it!!!) and my brain has shut down. It is beginning to eat itself. Coincidentally my DIET allows me to eat fried fish. FTW.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2007)

k1009 said:


> You'll have to forgive me. I'm following the same sort of DIET that Traci is (I mean, I exercised on Christmas Day and I really enjoyed it!!!) and my brain has shut down. It is beginning to eat itself. Coincidentally my DIET allows me to eat fried fish. FTW.



If you are not scarfing junk food every 20 minutes, you're on a diet and you're doomed to failure.

Get with the program.

And if you decide you'd like to lose weight, you can check out this thread: 

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12239

It was started by somebody who was planning to lose weight. I'm not saying who though!


----------



## Mini (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> *sigh*
> 
> for the 50 millionth time. I am not angry. No by a long shot. Mini is an offensive poster. And I'm blunt in my posts. Now if you should choose to continue to think I'n angry? I'm OK with that.



Wait wait wait, I'm offensive, but you're just blunt? Sorry, m'dear, but I don't think Planet Crackpot has enough oxygen.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2007)

Mini said:


> Wait wait wait, I'm offensive, but you're just blunt? Sorry, m'dear, but I don't think Planet Crackpot has enough oxygen.



Maybe you aren't getting enough to eat.

Are you dieting?


----------



## Mini (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Maybe you aren't getting enough to eat.
> 
> Are you dieting?



Probably.


----------



## mpls_girl26 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> You just keep making assumptions that are WRONG!
> 
> 
> And one last thing. You keep saying the kid needs to be put on a diet. Us fat folk are products of dieting.




Wow.......talk about assumptions! :shocked: All you keep doing is accusing people of making assumptions and you keep doing it yourself. Perfect example above.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 27, 2007)

mpls_girl26 said:


> Wow.......talk about assumptions! :shocked: All you keep doing is accusing people of making assumptions and you keep doing it yourself. Perfect example above.



That was less of an assumption and more of just being flat out wrong and making shit up.

Neither Traci nor I used the word diet, or even described an idea for this kid that could be construed as such.


----------



## mpls_girl26 (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> That was less of an assumption and more of just being flat out wrong and making shit up.
> 
> Neither Traci nor I used the word diet, or even described an idea for this kid that could be construed as such.



Oh I know that. I have agreed with everything you and Traci have said but have refrained from commenting thus far, until her post stating YET again that assumptions are being made. I was talking more about her saying "us fat folks are products of dieting."


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Mini is offensive.
> Sandie is blunt.
> 
> Sandie is not angry dammit.



That's correct. I don't tell people to fuck off. That's offensive.

Now what is your point with a post like this? Do you have something to contribute or are you just being a child??


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

k1009 said:


> You'll have to forgive me. I'm following the same sort of DIET that Traci is (I mean, I exercised on Christmas Day and I really enjoyed it!!!) and my brain has shut down. It is beginning to eat itself. Coincidentally my DIET allows me to eat fried fish. FTW.



Oh OK I see we now have more children posting.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> If you are not scarfing junk food every 20 minutes, you're on a diet and you're doomed to failure.
> 
> Get with the program.
> 
> ...




Yes that's right. That was me. You're so clever. Snark seems to be your forte!


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Mini said:


> Wait wait wait, I'm offensive, but you're just blunt? Sorry, m'dear, but I don't think Planet Crackpot has enough oxygen.



Mini you are a spoiled child who really has nothing to contribute in any conversation going on here. You are constantly acting like a ignorant ass. Now do I get to tell you to fuck off - or is that only your priviledge??


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Oh OK I see we now have more children posting.



This was a really good thread. It touched on a lot of sensitive subjects and was debated rationally and intelligently by BOTH sides of the argument. Then you came and compared your situation (which imho is a completely different kettle of fish) to that of the child in this story. You went completely over the top with your generalisations and accusations and tried to make us all feel bad for the butthurt you decided you had to feel over this.

RIP, interesting thread. Bring on the cat macros!


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> That was less of an assumption and more of just being flat out wrong and making shit up.
> 
> Neither Traci nor I used the word diet, or even described an idea for this kid that could be construed as such.



*yawn* you want some cheese with that whine??


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

k1009 said:


> This was a really good thread. It touched on a lot of sensitive subjects and was debated rationally and intelligently by BOTH sides of the argument. Then you came and compared your situation (which imho is a completely different kettle of fish) to that of the child in this story. You went completely over the top with your generalisations and accusations and tried to make us all feel bad for the butthurt you decided you had to feel over this.
> 
> RIP, interesting thread. Bring on the cat macros!



What?? You really are delusional aren't you. You were fine and not pissin your pants as long as everyone agreed with you. 

Life is tough - I don't care what you think. My opinion is mine.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

mpls_girl26 said:


> Oh I know that. I have agreed with everything you and Traci have said but have refrained from commenting thus far, until her post stating YET again that assumptions are being made. I was talking more about her saying "us fat folks are products of dieting."



We are products of dieting. But ya know having an intelligent conversation is hard - being a smartass is easy.


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> What?? You really are delusional aren't you. You were fine and not pissin your pants as long as everyone agreed with you.
> 
> Life is tough - I don't care what you think. My opinion is mine.



I'm not sure there's a quip or bon mot worthy of that post. I'll just quote it for posterity.

:bow:


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

k1009 said:


> I'm not sure there's a quip or bon mot worthy of that post. I'll just quote it for posterity.
> 
> :bow:



Thanks I enjoy people seing my opinions. I appreciate it.

Now, is anyone interested in continuing the original intent of this thread? Or are we just going to have to read one post after another with insult after insult - not done very well BTW. 

You are sadly mistaken if you think your posts to me are going to do anything except entertain me.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post much more than I had intended tho.


----------



## BLUEeyedBanshee (Dec 27, 2007)

Ok, first of all, I don't have the patience to read through all 7 pages of repeated arguments. 

I don't understand the logic, or lack thereof, behind arguing that there isn't anything wrong with the child being so severely overweight? How is this even a size acceptance issue? I have friend who has a child with Prader-Willi. She struggles constantly with her child. However, she has managed to keep her as active as possible. Yes the child is overweight, however, not to the point of it being so severely detrimental to her well-being. she is still able to go out and play with her friends. She loves kickball, she has as normal of a life as possible. is it easy for my friend? No, far from it, but she's a responsible parent. She doesn't let the cries and anger etc. influence her doing what's best for her child. 

Everyone here is making their own assumptions, however, just like child who is severely malnourished, a child that severely overweight needs attention. It can and probably is a case of abuse. An investigation is called for, and I don't think that putting forth this case as being one of size discrimination is valid.

Just sayin' 

But ya know, who knows, I'm probably childish as well


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Thanks I enjoy people seing my opinions. I appreciate it.
> 
> Now, is anyone interested in continuing the original intent of this thread? Or are we just going to have to read one post after another with insult after insult - not done very well BTW.
> 
> You are sadly mistaken if you think your posts to me are going to do anything except entertain me.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post much more than I had intended tho.


----------



## k1009 (Dec 27, 2007)

I need a spankin'.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie, I said it before, and I'll say it again.

Are you here just to insult people again, or what?


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Actually not one person who has posted here has said the child does NOT need attention. The problem is in the disagreement on what kind of treatment is necessary. 

I don't understand all the hard felings over differing opinions. It's a puzzle to me.

*shrug*




BLUEeyedBanshee said:


> Ok, first of all, I don't have the patience to read through all 7 pages of repeated arguments.
> 
> I don't understand the logic, or lack thereof, behind arguing that there isn't anything wrong with the child being so severely overweight? How is this even a size acceptance issue? I have friend who has a child with Prader-Willi. She struggles constantly with her child. However, she has managed to keep her as active as possible. Yes the child is overweight, however, not to the point of it being so severely detrimental to her well-being. she is still able to go out and play with her friends. She loves kickball, she has as normal of a life as possible. is it easy for my friend? No, far from it, but she's a responsible parent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Blackjack said:


> Sandie, I said it before, and I'll say it again.
> 
> Are you here just to insult people again, or what?




Am I Blackjack? You tell me. Where did the insults start???


----------



## BLUEeyedBanshee (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Actually not one person who has posted here has said the child does NOT need attention. The problem is in the disagreement on what kind of treatment is necessary.
> 
> I don't understand all the hard felings over differing opinions. It's a puzzle to me.
> 
> *shrug*



Truthfully, you've argued that a child who was underweight would not have received the same attention. In that matter you are severely wrong. 

There are many cases I have seen where children are starved, either to death or near death and their parents are prosecuted. How is this any different? This case needs to be investigated, and the parents need to be treated as any other parent suspected of abuse. Commonly the child is removed from the potentially harmful situation while the case is investigated.


----------



## mossystate (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> We are products of dieting. But ya know having an intelligent conversation is hard - being a smartass is easy.



Sandie, I am not sure if you were talking about a specific ' we ', as I have not read all the posts in this thread. I am not, as a fat woman, a product of ' dieting '. If you were implying that all fat people, or even most, are fat due to very restrictive food intake, over and over again, I would say you are wrong. I realize many people have damaged themselves doing this, but in my case, nothing could be less true. 

I am not sure I want to see children being taken away in cases like this, however, for anyone to say thatw hen a known issue is ' in your face ', you should basically sit back and do nothing, just so it does not smell of fat discrimination, well, to me, that is horrible. There is nothing easy about this situation, but, let's not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially since this baby is in dire straits due to parental neglect.

Can't we all agree that this kid needs help, and that the mom ( is the dad in the picture? ) needs to pop her head out of her goddamn ass. She is killing this child, simple as that. Maybe things would change on there own. Maybe the kid would get tired of not being able to walk for more than a few minutes...maybe...maybe..maybe. Do we really want that to be up to the kid, to have to parent himself?..oy..


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

BLUEeyedBanshee said:


> Truthfully, you've argued that a child who was underweight would not have received the same attention. In that matter you are severely wrong.



But what does that have to do with my opinion on how this fat child should be treated? I think he and his family need help (I've said that numerous times) but he does not need to be taken out of his home. I don't see severely underweight children being covered on TV and taken away from their homes. I just don't - that's a fact for me not made up. So in my personal experience I don't see it. If you have well then your experience is different from mine. And as such your opinion is going to be different, I don't have a problem with differing opinions. 



> There are many cases I have seen where children are starved, either to death or near death and their parents are prosecuted. How is this any different? This case needs to be investigated, and the parents need to be treated as any other parent suspected of abuse. Commonly the child is removed from the potentially harmful situation while the case is investigated.



I agree this case needs to be investigated - I never said otherwise. I just don't think taking him out of the home is the right thing to do. JMO.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Am I Blackjack? You tell me. Where did the insults start???



About three days ago.



Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Just to reiterate Paul my dear friend - nothing has changed and your post was like talking to a wall. There are people here who only come here to be snotty - for some sick reason they enjoy it.
> 
> *You are wasting your time and your intelligence here trying to have intelligent conversations. Like I keep saying to you - don't throw your pearls before swine.* There are good people here - but the nasty, childish and bullies far outweight them. (No pun intended). It's a shame because Conrad is always bending over backward to be fair.
> 
> ...



I called you on it then, and I'm calling you on it again.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

mossystate said:


> Can't we all agree that this kid needs help, and that the mom ( is the dad in the picture? ) needs to pop her head out of her goddamn ass. She is killing this child, simple as that. Maybe things would change on their own. Maybe the kid would get tired of not being able to walk for more than a few minutes...maybe...maybe..maybe. Do we really want that to be up to the kid, to have to parent himself?..oy..




Monique I have never said otherwise in this thread.

Personal insults aside (aimed at me when others said the same as I) I was enjoying this thread very much. I enjoy debate - it's part of my nature. But being told to "fuck off" gets my back up - I'm weird like that.


----------



## BLUEeyedBanshee (Dec 27, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I agree this case needs to be investigated - I never said otherwise. I just don't think taking him out of the home is the right thing to do. JMO.


 
Removing the child from the potentially dangerous situation while it's investigated is standard procedure, and the best way to do it.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Dec 27, 2007)

Blackjack said:


> About three days ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I called you on it then, and I'm calling you on it again.




Seperate thread. Seperate argument. I'm talking about this thread right here - right now. I said what I said in that other thread - I'm not going to retract or apologize for it.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Dec 27, 2007)

This thread is being closed. After consideration, it may or may not be re-opened.

/Dimensions Moderator


----------



## Tina (Dec 27, 2007)

Just a follow-up note.

Thanks to Sandie S-R for locking this thread while AM and I were otherwise occupied. I would like to remind those who may be tempted, to leave the fighting that went on in this thread here, and not to take it to other posts, threads or sub-boards.

Thank you. [/mod]


----------

