A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is The Mother Of A 555 Pound 14 Year Old Boy Guilty Of CriminalNeglect?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 19th 09, 04:59 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.kids,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,misc.consumers
The Master
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Is The Mother Of A 555 Pound 14 Year Old Boy Guilty Of CriminalNeglect?

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Dave U. Random wrote:

http://patdollard.com/2009/07/is-the...-555-pound-14-
year-old-boy-guilty-of-criminal-neglect/


Imagine you are going out for a drive. From your drive way you turn left.
At the first light you turn to the right, at the next you turn left again.
At the third you go through the intersection, and pull into the 7-11 for a
Big Gulp.

Someone who follows "Negative Liberty" will read the above and think it
good. You were free to drive any direction you wanted to, free to stop in
at the 7-11 and get a Big Gulp because you wanted to. You were free from
external forces that stoped you.

Someone who follows "Positive Liberty" will read the above and think it
bad. You were driven by internal forces to the 7-11. You HAD to have a
Big Gulp, so you took time from your day to get one, time that you would
have used for ther things if not for your thirst. You were not free from
internal forces that controled you.

A person who follows Positive Liberty will then insist that since you were
driven by internal forces, you are not rational. You are controled, and
not of your own free will. They, however, are not subject to such forces.
As such, for the "greater good", laws must be passed to limit your
behavior, behavior that you would have not wanted to do anyhow if not for
the internal forces controlling you. If you were "better", you would
thank them, so your opposition to them is a sign of just how damaged you
really are.

As for this 555 pound 14 year old, ask yourself first if you follow
positive or negative liberty. If you are a positive liberty "for the
greater good" Obama following national health care loving socialist
democrat, then I would expect you to want to save this child from themself
because you know best. On the other hand, if you follow negative liberty,
as I do, you would think it's not government's duty to get it's nose
involved since it's none of your business what someone else does.

  #2  
Old August 22nd 09, 01:48 AM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.kids,alt.support.diet,misc.consumers
Billy[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Is The Mother Of A 555 Pound 14 Year Old Boy Guilty Of Criminal Neglect?

In article ,
The Master wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Dave U. Random wrote:

http://patdollard.com/2009/07/is-the...-555-pound-14-
year-old-boy-guilty-of-criminal-neglect/


Imagine you are going out for a drive. From your drive way you turn left.
At the first light you turn to the right, at the next you turn left again.
At the third you go through the intersection, and pull into the 7-11 for a
Big Gulp.

Someone who follows "Negative Liberty" will read the above and think it
good. You were free to drive any direction you wanted to, free to stop in
at the 7-11 and get a Big Gulp because you wanted to. You were free from
external forces that stoped you.

Someone who follows "Positive Liberty" will read the above and think it
bad. You were driven by internal forces to the 7-11. You HAD to have a
Big Gulp, so you took time from your day to get one, time that you would
have used for ther things if not for your thirst. You were not free from
internal forces that controled you.

A person who follows Positive Liberty will then insist that since you were
driven by internal forces, you are not rational. You are controled, and
not of your own free will. They, however, are not subject to such forces.
As such, for the "greater good", laws must be passed to limit your
behavior, behavior that you would have not wanted to do anyhow if not for
the internal forces controlling you. If you were "better", you would
thank them, so your opposition to them is a sign of just how damaged you
really are.

As for this 555 pound 14 year old, ask yourself first if you follow
positive or negative liberty. If you are a positive liberty "for the
greater good" Obama following national health care loving socialist
democrat, then I would expect you to want to save this child from themself
because you know best. On the other hand, if you follow negative liberty,
as I do, you would think it's not government's duty to get it's nose
involved since it's none of your business what someone else does.


I don't know these people's situation, if they live in the country, or a
crime ridden neighborhood, or if their over eating is genetic, or
emotionally induced. I do know that the "Food Industry" spends $30B per
year on inducements to get you to eat, and the government spends a
couple of million in nutrition education.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F93AA25751C0A9
649C8B63

A CONVERSATION WITH: MARION NESTLE; An 'Eat More' Message For a
Fattened America

By MARY DUENWALD
Published: February 19, 2002

.. . . .

Q. How does the food industry promote overeating?

A. Just by promoting eating. By spending $10 billion a year in direct
media advertising. That is so much more than is spent on health and
nutrition education, you can't even put them in the same stratosphere.
The campaign for fruits and vegetables spends about $2 million a year on
public education.

The food industry spends another $20 billion a year in indirect
marketing, which would include things like the McDonald's Mealtime Set
and soft-drink makers' putting their logos on school scoreboards. These
practices are so acceptable that people think drinking soft drinks all
the time is normal. You're being told in a thousand ways, every time you
set foot in a restaurant, to eat more. Their job is to sell you food, to
sell you drinks, to sell you appetizers and desserts.
.. . .

I just wanted to share that with those of you who are smug in your
condescension.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Foster mother found guilty in slaying of 3-year-old nephew fx Spanking 0 May 17th 08 06:03 AM
Foster mother found guilty in slaying of 3-year-old nephew fx Foster Parents 0 May 17th 08 06:03 AM
Foster mother found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in death ofboy, 4 fx Spanking 0 November 16th 07 11:42 PM
Foster mother found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in death ofboy, 4 fx Foster Parents 0 November 16th 07 11:42 PM
Foster mother guilty in Isaac's death: Adams-Rogers jailed beforesentencing... fx Foster Parents 7 June 20th 07 11:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.