DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 26, 2014, 01:13:25 PM
-
(http://applecorehotels.com/img/press-logos/independent.co.uk-logo.png)
Katie Hopkins speaks out on childhood obesity:
"Parents of fat children should be prosecuted for child cruelty"
"Somehow in this horrible society of ours, being fat is seen as kind of acceptable"
By HEATHER SAUL
Thursday 25 December 2014
The ever-controversial Katie Hopkins has incurred the wrath of her critics once again after claiming parents of obese children should be prosecuted for "child cruelty".
The comments were made in an interview ahead of her upcoming TLC documentary My Fat Story, which is due to air in January.
The former Apprentice star gained almost four stone in weight for the film, to "prove" that overweight people should "stop blaming everyone else for problems they can control".
In footage from it, she was seen crying as she recited what she had eaten in a day, before saying: "This is a stupid project. I hate fat people for making me do this."
In another vitriolic rant released by TLC on Christmas Eve, Hopkins said: "If I see the parents of fat children, I have no inhibitions about pointing them, telling them, looking them in the eye and saying: "You've got a fat kid, it is your fault, you are miss-treating your child, this is child cruelty."
"Somehow in this horrible society of ours, being fat is seen as kind of "chubby" or "acceptable" or kind of "cuddly".
"Well, it's none of those things, that is child cruelty right there. The fact that we are now selling plus-sized uniforms for kids in schools is absolutely abhorrent to me.
"That is child cruelty and you should be prosecuted".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-speaks-out-on-childhood-obesity-parents-of-fat-children-should-be-prosecuted-for-child-cruelty-9944975.html
-
As a persom abit on the plus size. I'm saying this bit$& is nuts. Saying fat people are making her do this is. I got doubt it's beyond her power to put down that kfc bucket.
-
Children are told to eat what is put in front of them, and most of them do as they are told, especially with sweet and oily foods. Some obesity is genetic, most is not.
It is not possible to charge parents for making their kids fat. There is certainly nothing wrong with an information campaign to prevent childhood obesity, which can lead to diabetes.
The fact that someone suggests a law is no reason to get your bowels in an uproar about it.
-
The fact that someone suggests a law, where I can keep my health insurance and doctor, if I like them, and then following the passage of the law, I can't, should get everyone's bowels in an uproar
-
Your bowels are always in an uproar. That explains the massive quantities of virtually flung poo around here.
-
Since you brought up bowels, I must have learned it from the master, Dr Deflection....or in this case, Dr Defecation
-
The miracle seems to be that no matter how much you fling, you are still full of it.
-
I came from a perspective that being overweight is a luxury. I had some lean times in my life . I also see the difficulty of losing weight. I presently eat much less food than most of my life and that layer simply is not going away. so I got no sympathy for this person on the matter.
-
The miracle seems to be that no matter how much you fling, you are still full of it.
And yet again, so much energy, and so little substance to show for it. Sad, although consistent. Bravo, Deflection master
-
I came from a perspective that being overweight is a luxury. I had some lean times in my life . I also see the difficulty of losing weight. I presently eat much less food than most of my life and that layer simply is not going away. so I got no sympathy for this person on the matter.
So many perspectives, though I think its safe to say, obesity falls into 2 categories. Those who are prone to it, biologically, and those who chose to enjoy eating.......alot. parents definately can influence both, especially if they're aware of the former. But to even entertain the notion that...GOVERNMENT...needs to step in, and punish parents, because some twit of a liberal thinks they know better, just again demonstates an utter contempt for the freedoms associated with what our Constitution clearly establishes
-
At present, under Obamacare, the people with the lowest incomes pay the least for medical care, and the right wing is upset over this, perhaps because they believe that poverty always a person's own fault for being unproductive, ignoring the fact that many jobs are both productive and ill paid, and unproductive and well paid.
People are probably much more responsible for their own health than for their wealth, though there is not a absolute correlation. I do not hear right wingers complaining that people who use tobacco are unjustly taxed, even though they clearly were before any national health insurance. Tobacco is clearly to blame for health problems, and it seems to me to be fair to spend the taxes on tobacco entirely on health problems related to tobacco and to programs to end and prevent tobacco addition.
There are a number of foods that cause obesity far more than others. In Florida, sometimes the sales tax is applied to candy, and sometimes it is applied to stuff like potato chips. Items to depend on the store. It does no good at all to ask the cashier, and arguing over a 7ยข tax on a $1.00 bag of chips or candy. It would seem to be in the public interest to tax candy and other foods that cause poor health just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed. I do not see how this is a liberal or conservative issue, since it revolves around people being responsible for their own health. Why should a government tax tobacco and alcohol, and not tax other products that can lead to poor health?
The best role of a government is to inform people of the consequences of their usage of these products, which we partially do with food labeling, and to discourage the overuse of those things that are bad for health. Cigarette and alcohol taxes and taxes on candy and snack foods do not seem to be used to benefit the people who specifically choose to use these things, though cigarette taxes have caused a lot of people to stop using tobacco.
-
I think I can appreciate the Professor a bit more, in how he has to continuously correct his students mispellings, since here in the saloon, we seem to have to keep correcting his apparent endless erroneous assumptions and claims, when it comes to what "the right wing" thinks, believes, and more importantly, is "upset over". Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with like or dislike of poor people.
Speaking as a once dirt poor person, and now solidly middle class, I can see how both classes are being so screwed by would be, well intended, know-it-alls, that are either firmly entrenched in government, or buy their politicians, like Unions do. Those who push Government to produce more and more tax payer payed programs that enable the status quo of ever expanding government......to produce more and more tax payer payed programs that enable the status quo of ever expanding government......to produce....you can see the pattern here. The only one getting "helped" are those that support and/or are directly a part of an ever expanding level of control by our Federal Government.
My class is getting economically/financially killed with taxes and mandates to enable an ever growing poor class, that in turn looks to bigger and bigger government. That "help" also removes the bulk of any incentive to better one's self, since why put so much effort into it, if we can simply rely on the Government....(read taxpayers). There is no where near enough of "the rich" to support this unsustainable path. Nor is it morally appropriate to punish "the rich" and middle classes, with higher and higher taxes, in order to grow an ever expanding poor class, just to create an endless need for more political power and make jealous leftists feel better about themselves. There is no right to equal outcomes. There is no right to health insurance. There are going to be folks who make bad decisions. There are going to be those who practice bad judgement. It is not the role of Government or the tax payer to enable such a pattern, without repercussions
Bottom line is that the best role of government is the role it was specifically designed to perform, as clearly layed out in the Constitution. Including the mechanisms to change that role, if self proclaim know-it-alls, think the Government should take a more parental role, including punishing those who stray from what "they" have decided you should be doing/acting, like getting your child 2 scoops of ice cream instead of the preferred 8 oz portion of non-fat yogurt.
And don't even think there's not a desire to turn this into actual legislation. The rationalizations are already well established in supporting the 'good intentions" of such laws, already pushed and passed
-
The very caricature of a modern "Liberal" attitude is that the government ought to be used to solve every problem that there is.
When a conservative perceives a problem he might or might not want a government solution, but a conservative is more liable to try to solve the problem himself than a liberal is.
This relates directly to Conservatives giving half again as much to charities as Liberals do.
I think that conservatives have a higher opinion of their own ability and that of their fellowman , while Liberals seem to have an exaggerated estimate of the ability of government and a dismissive attitude twards the ability of individuals and NGOs.
-
Yeah, God wrote the Constitution and any attempt to change it would be heresy.
Human society never changes, and a Constitution written for a society largely consisting of subsistence yeoman farmers should never be altered in any way, shape of form.
I don't believe in punishing be parents who stuff their kids with junk food should be prosecuted, nor do I believe that such a law has any chance of passing. But there is a role for government to encourage people voluntarily to cause their children to live as healthy lives as possible. We alw=ready do this by taxing cigarettes and booze, and think that this has resulted in fewer people dying of tobacco and alcohol caused illnesses,
-
Yeah, God wrote the Constitution and any attempt to change it would be heresy.
Not pertinent to the point is this?
Human society never changes, and a Constitution written for a society largely consisting of subsistence yeoman farmers should never be altered in any way, shape of form..
Wow misses the point of the whole constitutional government thing and slides wide of the point.
I don't believe in punishing be parents who stuff their kids with junk food should be prosecuted, nor do I believe that such a law has any chance of passing. But there is a role for government to encourage people voluntarily to cause their children to live as healthy lives as possible. We alw=ready do this by taxing cigarettes and booze, and think that this has resulted in fewer people dying of tobacco and alcohol caused illnesses,
What is the governments interest in this?
The Temperance Movement should have taught us something about using government to improve the moral state and welfare of the populace. Is there no limit to the good the government can do?
I am a civil servant myself , would you really like me to monitor your behavior in deeeetail?
-
Missing the point is an understatement. We're a society of laws. It's one of the reasons we're such a great nation, that despite our flaws, including those in the justice system, because of our Constitution, and the freedoms we have from it, along with the more important concept, that of the limitations Government has, makes this country an envy of so many.
Our Constitution, is literally a rule book. If one is playing poker, there are rules to it. Those rules are in place so that everyone knows how it played, and the rules can be applied fairly, whether you're rich or poor, connected or not. A straight flush beats 2 pair, every time. Yet, there are those in this country, who would declare how "old" that rule is, and decide "today, 2 pair beats a straight flush, because....well, one person has won too many hands"
The reason so many on the left despise our constitution, and try to declare how outdated it is, is precisely because of the limitations and rules it places on our Government. But here's the kicker, our founders put in place the mechanism to change the rules, if "human society" believed that they were outdated. Gotta love that phrase....I think human society translates into "those of us that simply know better, than the rest of you". In any case, if those folks believe the rules need to be changed, such as making our Government a more parental form vs a defensive form, then by all means.....AMEND the Constitution. What you don't do is make up rules along the way, and/or decide these rules don't apply any more, and/or ignore rules that are an impediment to some ulterior agenda.
So no, my post had just the opposite point to the deflection that "God Wrote it, so it can't be changed". Of course it can be altered in shape or form. It's called the amendment process, so by all means, if folks think it needs altered, then they know what to do...its already established in the rules. Hint, it doesn't mean you ignore the Constitution or the rule of law. A straight flush still beats 2 pair
-
I have said nothing to suggest that I favor the government monitoring individuals.
The 18th Amendment seemed like a great idea at the time. To understand why entirely, you would need to have lived at that time and place.
From my perspective, it indicated TWO problems with out government, not just one. The first was that it was largely enacted by a rural White Protestant population that wanted to make the foreigners (beer swilling Germans and wine guzzling Italians, for example) to become proper Americans and to stop leading decent God-fearing real Americans into their unwholesome customs. People with the same attitude as the leaders of the Temperance movement today would be at the forefront of laws to bann the government from ever respecting Sharia Law and bitching about how much they hate pressing One for English.
The second problem that it demonstrates is how incredibly slow and sluggish the process for passing legislation is: it was clear by 1925 that Prohibition was not working, but it took another 7 years to repeal the damned thing. We have a government that is designed to be dysfunctional. Many constitutions were patterned after the US Constitution in the Americas and elsewhere, but not one included the idiotic Electoral College. I believe that every nation in the Americas that was independent by 1835 is now under a new, improved constitution. Mexico started with the Constitution of 1824, then enacted another in 1857 and is now under the Constitution of 1917.
The US Constitution was just fine in 1790. It is now obsolete and backward and the government does not work for the benefit of the people any longer.
The amendment process is awful and sucks. The proof is that we still have the idiotic Electoral College.
-
I have said nothing to suggest that I favor the government monitoring individuals.
Who said you did? However you "feel", the FACT remains that regardless of who wrote it, such as rural white folks, is irrelevant. If you and your ilk don't like the limitations placed on Government, then you AMEND IT, as was designed. You don't ignore it. You don't make up rules along the way. It's not "living or breathing" to rationalize new rules being made up. You amend the Constitution, if its supposedly outdated The LEGAL mechanisms are right there.
We are a nation of laws. You don't ignore laws you don't like.....that includes the Constitution. If you & your ilk wish to change the rule of law, by all means, it can and has been done in the past, LEGALLY & CONSTITUTIONALLY
-
I have said nothing to suggest that I favor the government monitoring individuals.
It is kind of implied.
Monitoring our diets will require something of the sort.
-
The second problem that it demonstrates is how incredibly slow and sluggish the process for passing legislation is: it was clear by 1925 that Prohibition was not working, but it took another 7 years to repeal the damned thing. We have a government that is designed to be dysfunctional.
Quite the contrary, To the soldiers returning from France it seemed like a sneaky punch.
The 18th amendment was handed to them as a feint accompli that would never be repealed, there was some benefit and a strong constituency in favor, but it didn't seem to be winning the heart of the whole nation so it got unamended.
Do you think the 14th amendment was too hastily adopted? that one didn't take long either.
I think the first ten were adopted all at once after all.
The only thing that prevents a new amendment is that there is not enough popular support, the 18th one is a demonstrator that the process needs to be slow so that it avoids being capricious.
-
Precisely
-
You should watch that Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition. It spent very long time being considered. Prohibition has worked in some places. There are still a number of dry counties, particularly in Oklahoma. The problem was that it was passed with minimal input from the younger citizens, and no thought to the fact that telling people they cannot have something makes them want it more.
-
If the Constitution is "so outdated", then amend it, as it was designed to be. This isn't rocket science, however we are a Rule of Law nation. Alot of laws we don't like...Obamination care for one. RvW for another. But we don't ignore them, we abide by them, despite how irresponsible they are. The Constitution, and how it can be amended, is no different. You don't like?, tough. Rule of law trumps your feelings & opinion on the matter
-
I still have a right to my feelings.
The Constitution is antiquated, the Amendment process sucks, and the government of this country is dysfunctional because of it.
-
Your 99% erroneous opinion is again duly noted
-
I still have a right to my feelings.
Of course you do, there is no standard of accuracy for feelings.
Is there an objective measure for how malleable and capricious the governments basic rules should be?
Probably not. What we have is trial and error , with fewer than one trial per decade most decades, of all decades never more than ten .
Baseball rules change more, Golf rules change less, and a change in cricket rules just isn't cricket.
-
I do not believe that a government should be organized in such a way as to be incompetent and for sale to the highest bidder.
Our government is not responsive to the efficient functioning of this country and is getting worse every year.
I see no way that it is ever likely to improve.
-
Not to mention there are legal & more importantly, constitutional mechanisms to change what you and your ilk think is wrong. Your choice for you folks to do something about it, or just squawk. What you are NOT going to do is to try and hijack this country and the Constitution that supports it. The 1st & 2nd amendments puts a kabosh on that tactic
-
I do not believe that a government should be organized in such a way as to be incompetent and for sale to the highest bidder.
Our government is not responsive to the efficient functioning of this country and is getting worse every year.
I see no way that it is ever likely to improve.
Well do you want efficiency or do you want responsiveness to the people?
This seems like two very different goals.
Efficiency might be well served by barring Democrats from all legislative and executive jobs, but I don't think I need smooth function badly enough to shut down the few choices that the people really get.
Giving the people more choices by having more direct democracy is notoriously inefficient and gets moreso with greater numbers, there has to be a compromise.
-
I would prefer getting rid of the Tea Party clowns and those who refuse to compromise.
When McConnell said that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president, he revealed himself to be unqualified to serve this country. He also revealed that he was a huge asshole. I hold fools like him responsible for this country being fucked up.
-
all the while ignoring the policies passed by Dems & Obama that have literally f'd up the country.
Harry Reid in particular has been Obama's proxy. It's laughable at your use of the term compromise. There has been multiple BIPARTISAN legislation passed by the House, supported by a majority of those polled in this country, but never allowed to even be voted on in the Senate, by the Senate Majority leader Reid....since it may cause some Democrats, in particular, Obama, to look bad
You and your ilk have no standing when it comes to demanding compromise, since it has been provided.....in spades. But for hard core liberals like Reid and Obama, its either their way, or no way. That's one of the main reasons the country said "enough", last November
-
I do not believe that a government should be organized in such a way as to be incompetent and for sale to the highest bidder.
You do realize that "rich Democrats" far outspent rich Republicans in the last election, right? And what exactly did that buy them?
Our government is not responsive to the efficient functioning of this country and is getting worse every year.
I see no way that it is ever likely to improve.
Of course not....the bigger, the more inefficient anything becomes. Especially Government
-
I would prefer getting rid of the Tea Party clowns and those who refuse to compromise.
When McConnell said that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president, he revealed himself to be unqualified to serve this country. He also revealed that he was a huge asshole. I hold fools like him responsible for this country being fucked up.
How does this attitude square with fair play and patriotism?
This seems to be a stance totally contrary to tolerance , inclusiveness ,diversity and fairness.
Shouldn't every dog have his day?
-
Only if you want the country to be run by canines.
-
Only if you want the country to be run by canines.
That is not the result I expect.
I thought BHO unsuited for high office since I learned of his actions as Senator.
But I tolerate his election because he was truly elected, now his use of power is an example of how just being elected is not enough, competence would be a big plus, at his pay level he cannot vote "present".
But it is only fair that he have his day , and the results speak to whether he is or isn't a dog.
When Reagan was elected didn't you have hope that someone you liked better would have a turn later?
Reagans results were better than anyone had any right to expect, perhaps he was not such a dog after all.
The people are stubborn but not impossible to teach, after the election of an obvious dog, some of the stubborn just stay home, some learn better what is good.
Experience is most valuable , if it enables foresight.
-
BINGO!
Note again, how the Professor had no answer regarding the overt inefficiency of an ever growing bureaucratic Government, or that Billionaire Dems far outspent those evil rich Republicans, like the Kochs, this last election cycle. Pretty much guts his claims on this matter
-
I dare to you prove that the Democrats raised more money. It is no longer required to identify where all contributions come from. No one knows.
It was always possible to deliver bags of cash to anyone and report nothing.
-
I dare to you prove that the Democrats raised more money.
(http://media.townhall.com/_townhall/uploads/2014/12/30/1.png)
-
Highest bidder appears to be Steyer. He appears to have purchased some executive actions, and some Democrat legislators' votes regarding Keystone
-
That is hardly the issue.
The government does not send snoops out to curtail drunkenness and smoking, it simply imposes taxes to make alcohol and tobacco so expensive that people will limit their use. With regard smoking, it makes sense to ban it indoors where others are obliged to breathe the air, and no sense to ban it outdoors, where there is more circulation.
There are no "smoke easies" where diners can go and eat and smoke. Perhaps there should be. It would not bother me.
-
That is hardly the issue.
That is exactly the issue, that YOU brought up...even went so far as to dare me to back it up, when I claimed how Dems had more rich donors that the GOP....when you brought up the notion that our Government goes to the highest bidder(s). "I do not believe that a government should be organized in such a way as to be incompetent and for sale to the highest bidder." YOUR words.
Debunking the ignorant notion about who "the rich" are, as it relates to who donates the largest sums of $$$$ into political parties, has a laundry list of Millionaire/Billionaire Democrats at the top of that list. Koch isn't even in the top 10. Those are simply the facts. But cudos on trying to change the subject from an apparent inconvenient truth