Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Parental Neglect and the Federal Godmother

Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
edited October 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
I tend not to like other people's children, and perhaps that leads me to be a bit unsympathetic towards the difficulties of parenting. But, I also work at a place where I deal with a lot of parents and I often see morbidly obese kids munching on a bag of Doritos or clearly asthmatic kids whose parents reek of cigarette smoke. These parents, whether through ignorance or indifference, are [hyperbole]just as negligent as the sorts of parents who lost their kids to CSB.[/hyperbole]

While I'm a bit hesitant to demand federal parental regulations, both asthma and childhood obesity A) usually have preventable environmental causes and B) lead to lifelong health problems. Given that, and some studies that point to childhood obesity lowering IQ scores, wouldn't the government be obligated to step in and protect these kids? Perhaps mandatory dietary and smoking cessation classes and, as a last resort, home inspections of parents who can't or won't comply with rules designed to prevent them from fucking up their children's lives.

Obviously asthma and obesity can have causes other than environmental, but, (I'm not sure about asthma) aside from diet and lack of excersize, other causes of obesity are pretty rare.

Richard_Dastardly on
ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
cats are douches
«1

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    CPS workers on average currently have about five times the caseload that they should. They're not dealing with cases of genuine physical and emotional abuse; I really don't think adding obesity and smoking to the list of things they have to deal with is going to help things at all.

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    CPS workers on average currently have about five times the caseload that they should. They're not dealing with cases of genuine physical and emotional abuse; I really don't think adding obesity and smoking to the list of things they have to deal with is going to help things at all.
    It's ironic that, for a nation supposedly devoted to its children, we have grossly underfunded child welfare services.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    CPS workers on average currently have about five times the caseload that they should. They're not dealing with cases of genuine physical and emotional abuse; I really don't think adding obesity and smoking to the list of things they have to deal with is going to help things at all.
    It's ironic that, for a nation supposedly devoted to its children, we have grossly underfunded child welfare services.

    Because that would be socialism. [irony]Think of the children![/irony]

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm in favor of giving parents tax credits for completing parenting courses, not just for infant care but for the care of pre-teens and even teens as well. Too many parents either don't care or care but still have no idea what they're doing, and it's time we shook this notion that the simple act of having a child somehow imbues you with the wisdom to raise a child.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.

    Erik
  • QliphothQliphoth Registered User
    edited October 2009
    I don't think asthma is usually preventable. I mean, the symptoms and severity might be if its untreated/aggravated but in most cases I'm pretty sure its not preventable.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I read the linked article... I'm still not convinced of a causal relationship between obesity and lower IQ. Correlation, sure, but nothing that rules out, for example, both the obesity and the lower IQ being caused by some third (unknown) factor.

    Plus what everyone else said. :P

    Personally, I like D&D because I find OCD much more interesting than ADD.
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qliphoth wrote: »
    I don't think asthma is usually preventable. I mean, the symptoms and severity might be if its untreated/aggravated but in most cases I'm pretty sure its not preventable.

    Dude if the parents smoke, they're obviously bad parents. I mean every time I see someone with a kid and the parent smells like smoke, I think to myself: we should have government agents follow these guys into their homes to check up on them ASAP. THAT GUY COULD BE DOING ANYTHING TO THAT KID. If you're caring whether or not asthma is preventable, I suggest you must not be spending enough time thinking of the children.

    Erik
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.
    When the hell did I say that? I'm simply advocating some sort of government oversight when parents can't manage the health of their children on their own.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.
    When the hell did I say that? I'm simply advocating some sort of government oversight when parents can't manage the health of their children on their own.
    wouldn't the government be obligated to step in and protect these kids? Perhaps mandatory dietary and smoking cessation classes and, as a last resort, home inspections of parents who can't or won't comply with rules designed to prevent them from fucking up their children's lives.

    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    Erik
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    Hey, fining parents already demonstrating bad parenting skills because they don't care for their kids properly is a great idea. That way they can not save that money to in some way enrich their kids lives. Maybe the $500 fine will mean they can't afford milk and fresh bread this month, so they'll go with the Dr. K 2-liter bottle and dorito bag this week instead!

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    OP actually did in the last sentence of his first paragraph, or implied it, I simply didn't quote that because he left himself a cop-out excuse in the form of his [hyperbole] tags.

    And he said the government is obligated to step in and protect these kids. You don't do that with fines, do you?

    Erik
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    Hey, fining parents already demonstrating bad parenting skills because they don't care for their kids properly is a great idea. That way they can not save that money to in some way enrich their kids lives. Maybe the $500 fine will mean they can't afford milk and fresh bread this week, so they'll go with the Dr. K 2-liter bottle and dorito bag this week instead!

    1. If they need the money that bad, they can make it back by completing the class. If you need to, incentivize it further by making the tax credit bigger than the fine. And of course, the class needs to be accessible for people with full-time jobs and little in the way of free time. Maybe make it so that it can be completed online.

    2. Do you seriously think people who are parents to unhealthy kids aren't already spending all their grocery money on unhealthy foods? Fuck, water's cheaper than soda, but nine times out of ten you'll see the whole family drinking the latter regardless of their financial situation.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    Hey, fining parents already demonstrating bad parenting skills because they don't care for their kids properly is a great idea. That way they can not save that money to in some way enrich their kids lives. Maybe the $500 fine will mean they can't afford milk and fresh bread this week, so they'll go with the Dr. K 2-liter bottle and dorito bag this week instead!

    1. If they need the money that bad, they can make it back by completing the class. If you need to, incentivize it further by making the tax credit bigger than the fine. And of course, the class needs to be accessible for people with full-time jobs and little in the way of free time. Maybe make it so that it can be completed online.

    2. Do you seriously think people who are parents to unhealthy kids aren't already spending all their grocery money on unhealthy foods? Fuck, water's cheaper than soda, but nine times out of ten you'll see the whole family drinking the latter regardless of their financial situation.

    Actually, for families in rural Alaska, for instance, soda is the cheapest available beverage made available to the populace. (Fresh water is harder to come by due to a lack of the water purification and delivery infrastructure we're used to.) Additionally, a parent knows that non-water beverages are often needed to get those little kids hydrating.

    A parent who is already making bad decisions while rearing their children isn't necessarily going to suddenly start being smarter/making better decisions just because the government has stepped in and slapped a fine on them.

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    Hey, fining parents already demonstrating bad parenting skills because they don't care for their kids properly is a great idea. That way they can not save that money to in some way enrich their kids lives. Maybe the $500 fine will mean they can't afford milk and fresh bread this week, so they'll go with the Dr. K 2-liter bottle and dorito bag this week instead!

    1. If they need the money that bad, they can make it back by completing the class. If you need to, incentivize it further by making the tax credit bigger than the fine. And of course, the class needs to be accessible for people with full-time jobs and little in the way of free time. Maybe make it so that it can be completed online.

    Well gee. We all know there are no poor people with no time and no computers. I concede your point. I mean all they have to do is abase themselves and promise to be good and do a little test showing they paid attention to what we told them, and we'll give them the money we took from them back? Sounds like a sweet deal for these poor people!
    2. Do you seriously think people who are parents to unhealthy kids aren't already spending all their grocery money on unhealthy foods? Fuck, water's cheaper than soda, but nine times out of ten you'll see the whole family drinking the latter regardless of their financial situation.

    Oh, so this program will be going into the houses of 9 out of 10 families to ensure that no one's letting kids drink soda? Great plan!

    Erik
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    If you really think that CPS being told to walk in to a persons home and enforce how to raise their children as a 'last resort' isn't the same thing as them being able to walk out of a home with the children therein because the parents don't 'comply with rules', you're an idiot.

    Or did you just want to create a program where we make rules we can't enforce? Because that's also an idiotic thing to do.

    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    Hey, fining parents already demonstrating bad parenting skills because they don't care for their kids properly is a great idea. That way they can not save that money to in some way enrich their kids lives. Maybe the $500 fine will mean they can't afford milk and fresh bread this week, so they'll go with the Dr. K 2-liter bottle and dorito bag this week instead!

    1. If they need the money that bad, they can make it back by completing the class. If you need to, incentivize it further by making the tax credit bigger than the fine. And of course, the class needs to be accessible for people with full-time jobs and little in the way of free time. Maybe make it so that it can be completed online.

    2. Do you seriously think people who are parents to unhealthy kids aren't already spending all their grocery money on unhealthy foods? Fuck, water's cheaper than soda, but nine times out of ten you'll see the whole family drinking the latter regardless of their financial situation.

    Actually, for families in rural Alaska, for instance, soda is the cheapest available beverage made available to the populace. (Fresh water is harder to come by due to a lack of the water purification and delivery infrastructure we're used to.) Additionally, a parent knows that non-water beverages are often needed to get those little kids hydrating.

    A parent who is already making bad decisions while rearing their children isn't necessarily going to suddenly start being smarter/making better decisions just because the government has stepped in and slapped a fine on them.

    I missed the part where we were talking about Alaskan parents!

    Also, I think I've been pretty clear on the fact that I'd like to see the government encouraging parents to learn how to be better parents through incentivized classes. The fines are just a way of pushing them to the classes when they make mistakes that need correction.

    And of course, I wouldn't expect a fine to be issued except in those cases that truly warrant it, like when a school nurse or pediatrician feels a child's health is truly in jeopardy. Anything short of that should perhaps just warrant a letter advertising the classes and the tax credit that comes with completion.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Well gee. We all know there are no poor people with no time and no computers. I concede your point. I mean all they have to do is abase themselves and promise to be good and do a little test showing they paid attention to what we told them, and we'll give them the money we took from them back? Sounds like a sweet deal for these poor people!

    Nearly every public library in America has internet access now, and I'm sure you could work something out with high school and college computer labs as well.

    If a community literally has no public internet access available to members who can't afford it themselves, then that's something that needs addressing as well. The internet is a tremendous resource for education and job searches and it needs to be available to everyone in some fashion.
    Oh, so this program will be going into the houses of 9 out of 10 families to ensure that no one's letting kids drink soda? Great plan!

    It was an example to highlight a greater issue, namely that unhealthy foods are generally preferred in American families. You only need to look at the overall sales figures of these to prove that to yourself.

    That said, I hardly think that anyone should be fined should be fined just because a kid is drinking soda. If that kid is experiencing health problems and the parents aren't making the changes necessary to rectify that, however, then it's child abuse and I think a fine that encourages them to take a class after they've declined to take the class simply for the tax credit is one of the better solutions we have.

    What else is there?

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    1. If they need the money that bad, they can make it back by completing the class. If you need to, incentivize it further by making the tax credit bigger than the fine. And of course, the class needs to be accessible for people with full-time jobs and little in the way of free time. Maybe make it so that it can be completed online.
    Also, I think I've been pretty clear on the fact that I'd like to see the government encouraging parents to learn how to be better parents through incentivized classes. The fines are just a way of pushing them to the classes when they make mistakes that need correction.

    No, you haven't been very clear that what you're suggesting is some sort of classes=money program from the federal government. Mostly because you were the one suggesting a fine instead of removing children from houses. So we all pretty much assumed you were talking about fines since that's what you were talking about.

    But I'm all for that idea. Some free online test parents can fill out and get a bunch of money? Why not, I see zero potential for abuse.

    edit: I think teaching better parenting is a great idea. I'm just pointing out how many problems there are with it.

    Erik
  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.

    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Worst idea ever, it's shit like this that gives Liberals a bad name. Crazy nanny state people.

  • SosSos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The sad fact of the matter is that not all parents have their children's best interest in their mind and not all children are born into a favorable situation.

    The only reasonable thing the government can do in the American political climate is to provide opportunity through education. By my line of reasoning this will boil down to education reform and that's a topic for a different thread.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    1. If they need the money that bad, they can make it back by completing the class. If you need to, incentivize it further by making the tax credit bigger than the fine. And of course, the class needs to be accessible for people with full-time jobs and little in the way of free time. Maybe make it so that it can be completed online.
    Also, I think I've been pretty clear on the fact that I'd like to see the government encouraging parents to learn how to be better parents through incentivized classes. The fines are just a way of pushing them to the classes when they make mistakes that need correction.

    No, you haven't been very clear that what you're suggesting is some sort of classes=money program from the federal government. Mostly because you were the one suggesting a fine instead of removing children from houses. So we all pretty much assumed you were talking about fines since that's what you were talking about.

    But I'm all for that idea. Some free online test parents can fill out and get a bunch of money? Why not, I see zero potential for abuse.

    I think you overlooked my first post in this thread which mentioned classes.

    Also, the way I see an online version of the class working would entail multiple versions to discourage cheating. You'd have the learning material and questions immediately after each section. Finally, at the end, you'd have an overall test. Wrong answers would redirect you back to the information you got wrong, at which point you could retest.

    Actually taking the class in person would be preferable, of course, but online is probably the most accessible format available to people with multiple jobs or other suffocating responsibilities.

    And finally, you don't get cash, you get a tax credit and/or the negation of the fine. I don't know how to incentivize it for people who don't pay taxes, but I'm sure the government could figure something out.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.

    Sometimes letting your child's weight become out of control is neglect. Presently there's no mechanism for addressing that.

    And yes, the government does employ experts in parenting.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think you overlooked my first post in this thread which mentioned classes.

    You're right, I did, my apologies.

    edit: my point about 'abuse' of the test was that there are countless parents who aren't going to need one, who are going to take one every time they're eligible for free money. Even wealthy people will take a free $500 off their taxes or whatever. That's an awful lot of money to be shelling out for something that should be taught much earlier in life. How much are you figuring on this online test costing? Because to me it looks really, really expensive for something that should just be integrated with education as a whole under a subject something like 'career and life management'.

    Erik
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.
    As a parent, this OP's idea of letting government have more power over my son's upbringing is horrifying. No CPS official is getting access to my son or my house without a warrant.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    OP never said anything about taking kids away from their parents.

    You could enforce with fines that can be rescinded upon completion of a parenting class.

    OP actually did in the last sentence of his first paragraph, or implied it, I simply didn't quote that because he left himself a cop-out excuse in the form of his [hyperbole] tags.

    And he said the government is obligated to step in and protect these kids. You don't do that with fines, do you?
    Yeah, I should back away from that position a bit. I'm definately not advocating taking children away from their parents, but I'm also unsure of what the next possible step would be beyond inspections. And even that seems a little drastic except in perhaps the most extreme cases.

    I do believe that raising morbidly obese children or kids with second-hand smoke induced health problems, perhaps while not as immediate a problem as physical or mental abuse, is neglect.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.

    Sometimes letting your child's weight become out of control is neglect. Presently there's no mechanism for addressing that.

    And yes, the government does employ experts in parenting.

    God, your point of view is terrible.

    And I'm not even going to get into the electoral ramifications of such a move.

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.
    Dude, there is a huge difference between a chubby kid and a morbidly obese one.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.
    As a parent, this OP's idea of letting government have more power over my son's upbringing is horrifying. No CPS official is getting access to my son or my house without a warrant.

    If a child was so unhealthy as to be considered at risk, would you support intervention on the part of CPS?

    If so, then you agree with the OP's overall idea. From there, it's just a matter of establishing how bad a kid's health needs to be to warrant government intervention. Some of us would draw that line at morbid obesity, others would put it somewhere else, but if we all agree in principle that there is a point where poor health is tantamount to abuse, then we're at least on the same page.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I do believe that raising morbidly obese children or kids with second-hand smoke induced health problems, perhaps while not as immediate a problem as physical or mental abuse, is neglect.

    For what it's worth, I do too. But so is getting your 14 year old to watch over your 12 and 10 year old when you run out to the store --unless it's teaching the 14 year old responsibility. Then the parent is building character, right? But how do you tell which it is? How do you decide what to enforce or what you should be watching for?

    I doubt any of us have had parents that didn't do something that other parents wouldn't have considered neglect. The government, when it looks at us, takes a look at such a narrow slice of us that I don't think it's in a position to judge how qualified parents are. Not on the basis of something like the parent smoking or the child being chubby, at least.

    Erik
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.
    As a parent, this OP's idea of letting government have more power over my son's upbringing is horrifying. No CPS official is getting access to my son or my house without a warrant.

    If a child was so unhealthy as to be considered at risk, would you support intervention on the part of CPS?

    If so, then you agree with the OP's overall idea. From there, it's just a matter of establishing how bad a kid's health needs to be to warrant government intervention. Some of us would draw that line at morbid obesity, others would put it somewhere else, but if we all agree in principle that there is a point where poor health is tantamount to abuse, then we're at least on the same page.
    I need a more concrete, objective standard then "unhealthy" before I can address this. But, yes, we are on the same page- there is a legitimate point where kids need to be protected from monstrous or incredibly neglectful parents. But the OP seemed to be drawing that line closer to "parents let kids each junk food" than "parents are whoring kids out for crack."

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    geckahn wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.

    Sometimes letting your child's weight become out of control is neglect. Presently there's no mechanism for addressing that.

    And yes, the government does employ experts in parenting.

    God, your point of view is terrible.

    And I'm not even going to get into the electoral ramifications of such a move.

    To me, you're effectively saying that a kid can never get unhealthy enough for his parents to be deemed neglectful and worthy of some form of government intervention. This includes cases where the kid's long-term quality of life is severely at risk. Hell, it even includes cases where a kid might have a fucking heart attack.

    Am I misrepresenting your point of view now? If so, then there is common ground between us and we do agree that, sometimes, the government should be able to step in and do something to help a kid whose poor health has reached a certain level. From there, it's just a matter of determining where the point is.

    If you're still with me, then we can switch the debate to how bad a kid's health needs to be to warrant intervention.

    If you aren't still with me, however, then you need to come out and say that you place a parent's right to raise their kid as they see fit above the kid's actual wellbeing, even in the most extreme of cases.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    I think you overlooked my first post in this thread which mentioned classes.

    You're right, I did, my apologies.

    edit: my point about 'abuse' of the test was that there are countless parents who aren't going to need one, who are going to take one every time they're eligible for free money. Even wealthy people will take a free $500 off their taxes or whatever. That's an awful lot of money to be shelling out for something that should be taught much earlier in life. How much are you figuring on this online test costing? Because to me it looks really, really expensive for something that should just be integrated with education as a whole under a subject something like 'career and life management'.

    I don't know how much you should get for completing the test. I don't have the knowledge to even make an informed guess.

    But anyway, if a tax credit is untenable, then perhaps there's some other way of incentivizing it.
    I need a more concrete, objective standard then "unhealthy" before I can address this. But, yes, we are on the same page- there is a legitimate point where kids need to be protected from monstrous or incredibly neglectful parents. But the OP seemed to be drawing that line closer to "parents let kids each junk food" than "parents are whoring kids out for crack."
    The OP did specifically cite cases of morbid obesity, which I feel is a good starting point.

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited October 2009
    geckahn wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.

    Sometimes letting your child's weight become out of control is neglect. Presently there's no mechanism for addressing that.

    And yes, the government does employ experts in parenting.

    God, your point of view is terrible.

    And I'm not even going to get into the electoral ramifications of such a move.

    To me, you're effectively saying that a kid can never get unhealthy enough for his parents to be deemed neglectful and worthy of some form of government intervention. This includes cases where the kid's long-term quality of life is severely at risk. Hell, it even includes cases where a kid might have a fucking heart attack.

    Am I misrepresenting your point of view now? If so, then there is common ground between us and we do agree that, sometimes, the government should be able to step in and do something to help a kid whose poor health has reached a certain level. From there, it's just a matter of determining where the point is.

    If you're still with me, then we can switch the debate to how bad a kid's health needs to be to warrant intervention.

    If you aren't still with me, however, then you need to come out and say that you place a parent's right to raise their kid as they see fit above the kid's actual wellbeing, even in the most extreme of cases.

    It's possible for a kid's health to deteriorate so badly that a visit from CPS is needed. But the kid would have to be morbidly obese, and of a young age, for me to support that.

    As for the OP, totally disagree with the idea of making parents take classes. I'd support the class idea if the only government action is giving them a tax credit for participating.

    Besides that, you'd best be focusing on the macro level and staying out of families if you want to combat childhood obesity. Things like eliminating corn subsidies, improving the quality of school lunches, and promoting exercise/play.

  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.
    Dude, there is a huge difference between a chubby kid and a morbidly obese one.

    And there is a difference between obese due to junk food and obese due to medical condition. Lets add some doctor bills into this now, or do we just blanket fat as being simply fat?

    It's a horrible idea brough on by someone who wants to not deal with other people's fatty kids. And I would love to see an "expert" in parenting. I don't care how many degrees you have, or how many kids you have; no one will ever be an expert when it comes to raising anyone.

    Least of all someone appointed by the govt.

    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.
    Dude, there is a huge difference between a chubby kid and a morbidly obese one.

    And there is a difference between obese due to junk food and obese due to medical condition. Lets add some doctor bills into this now, or do we just blanket fat as being simply fat?

    It's a horrible idea brough on by someone who wants to not deal with other people's fatty kids. And I would love to see an "expert" in parenting. I don't care how many degrees you have, or how many kids you have; no one will ever be an expert when it comes to raising anyone.

    Least of all someone appointed by the govt.

    It's kind of a cheap trick to imbue the word "expert" with unattainable qualities even though that's not the definition that's conventionally used.

    In any case, it would still remain that government experts on parenting know more than the average parent does. It makes no sense to say otherwise unless you just have some kind of prejudice against education or truly believe that simply having kids imbues you with special knowledge.

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I for one wholeheartedly support Richard_Dastardly's suggestion of taking chubby asthmatic children from their (asthma and obesity encouraging but otherwise loving and caring) parents and throwing them into the child rape fan club of CPS foster housing. His arguments seem lucid and well thought out.
    As a parent, this OP's idea of letting government have more power over my son's upbringing is horrifying. No CPS official is getting access to my son or my house without a warrant.
    Apparently I'm not being clear. If I wasn't, I apologize. I'd thought that when I mention grossly obese children, it might be understood that I'm talking about grossly obese children. Not chubby ones, nor fat ones nor overweight ones. I'm not even talking about parents who smoke in front of their kids.

    When second-hand smoke causes breathing problems in a child, why shouldn't the government step in and ensure the parents are providing a healthy environment? I ask the same question about a child who is so obese as to risk developing diabeties. This country can already punish parents who neglect their children in ways that can or do cause harm to the child, whether that's from leaving them alone in the house or letting them drink while underage.

    There are, of course, a lot of other issues involved then purposeful neglect. As someone said earlier, tax credits for parenting classes is a great idea, perhaps even going to far as to have mandatory classes as a requirement to get on welfare. Also, perhaps the government and grocery stores could work together to ensure that needy families can afford fresh fruits, vegetables, juice and whole grain as opposed to cheap foods saturated in fat.
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    And there is a difference between obese due to junk food and obese due to medical condition. Lets add some doctor bills into this now, or do we just blanket fat as being simply fat?
    I'd mentioned that in the OP. Obesity caused by medical conditions is fairly rare.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yeah, it'd be great if Food Stamps also entailed a discount on healthy foods.

  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    When did the government become experts in parenting? This is a horrible idea. The government should only get involved if there is serious neglect, not becuase tubby is eating cheetos and mommy is ok with it.
    Dude, there is a huge difference between a chubby kid and a morbidly obese one.

    And there is a difference between obese due to junk food and obese due to medical condition. Lets add some doctor bills into this now, or do we just blanket fat as being simply fat?

    It's a horrible idea brough on by someone who wants to not deal with other people's fatty kids. And I would love to see an "expert" in parenting. I don't care how many degrees you have, or how many kids you have; no one will ever be an expert when it comes to raising anyone.

    Least of all someone appointed by the govt.

    It's kind of a cheap trick to imbue the word "expert" with unattainable qualities even though that's not the definition that's conventionally used.

    In any case, it would still remain that government experts on parenting know more than the average parent does.

    Based on what? Title, degree, experience? This is the same gov that puts people in charge of things they have no experience in.

    As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.

    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.