Brian Peacock wrote:Forty Two wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:I suppose one might consider diet a public health issue, in some senses at least. Yeah, people should eat what they like - we each have personal dominion over our bodies and carry ultimate responsibility for what we put in it. But for some that free choice, and thus the extent of that responsibility, is limited or skewed because, say, there isn't much to choose from or we can only eat what we can afford, etc. Also, a significant proportion of the population have next to no choice about what they eat and mostly just eat what they're told to - that group being children.
If you think children just "eat what they're told to..." you have never had children...
I have children, so your wrong on that. Do children get a say in what proportion of household income is spent on food, what those shopped-for items should be, how those ingredients are prepared, or when they are served? Generally not. OK, some kids won't eat this-or-that, but are they actually in control of, and therefore personally responsible for, their own nutritional requirements in the sense I was referring to? I think not.
No, of course not. I was obviously making a joke there, about how kids don't eat anything they're "told" to eat, at least not without massive amounts of cajoling, negotiating and/or threatening. However, the parents are, of course, the ones who feed their kids. The fact that the world is an imperfect place does not operate, in my view, to warrant a State imposed diet.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Telling your children to, "Shut up and eat your lard," is not being responsible, particularly if lard is a major component of every meal time.
For whom is "lard" a major component of every meal? Butter, maybe, oil, maybe, but "lard?" What is this? 1930?
It's an emblematic ingredient, that's all. I think you may have overdosed your literal pills today.
You and me both, given your response to my comment about kids not eating anything. But, touche'.
Brian Peacock wrote:
On to the children issue, one never has to force kids to eat unhealthy foods. They do that no problem. The foods they won't eat are the ones that are good for them.
Really? Sure, we all have a predisposition to seek out fatty, sugary, salty foods - to calorie cram against the possibility of future nutritional hardship, against the famine that never arrives - but to say children won't eat healthy foods is a bit too broad to be taken seriously. What you probably mean is that parents will often provide a fatty, sugary, salty alternative when faced with a truculent child who's holding out for a fatty, sugary, salty alternative.
....literal pills.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:With all the information around about the probable health consequences associated with an over-consumption of dietary fats then continuing to pump your kids full of foodstuffs weeping with saturated and trans fats does start to look a bit like abuse - even if lardy cakes taste absolutely delicious.
If a child is fat to the point of obesity, then there is a point to be made. However, that's not where it stops. It ends up being schools taking action against parents for sending their kids to school with ham & cheese sandwiches and a snack.
That's a different point entirely, but let's pursue it, accepting the point that your appear to accept, that "continuing to pump your kids full of foodstuffs weeping with saturated and trans fats does start to look like abuse". I'd suggest that schools, healthcare professionals, and others, have a duty to address that kind of problem when it arises on a child's behalf, as we would all expect them to do in addressing, say, child starvation, beatings, or sexual abuse, etc.
I did not accept that precise point. I accepted that feeding kids to the point of gross obesity is one thing, and I pointed out that feeding kids a ham and cheese sandwich. Cheese and other dairy products have some trans fats and lots of saturated fats. Is that "weeping with saturated and trans fats?" What is a school supposed to do? Conclude that if the kid has a sandwich with cheese on it and a box of milk for lunch that the kid is not eating healthy and it may be abuse? Is a schoolteacher competent to make that determination?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Now if you want to reduce that to debate about the 'healthiness' of a single ham and cheese sandwich feel free, but I'd prefer you to addressed the point rather than focusing in on a minor anecdotal detail.
I'm not addressing some mere anecdotal detail. When a state official or a school official is assessing a situation, they are looking at things like the lunch brought to school. The default is that the school-provided lunch is healthy, and a deviation from that is not. That's just common sense. A school official bears no risk if all the kids eat the State-approved meal, but allowing bagged lunches leaves open a claim of failure to supervise what was being eaten.
Also, is there a greater competence on the part of the state here? I mean eggs are good for you? Or are they? Is margarine better than butter? How much can one have of any of that?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Actually, the question was quite specific: 'what choice did those children have' about their diet?
Very little, if any. Same as what choice they have as to what school to go to, or what playground to play at, or what house to live in, or what car to drive them in.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Another part of the analysis would be whether the State has any sort of competence to remedy the situation. While I would agree with you that the grossly fat kids represent a sad and regrettable consequence of, very likely, bad parenting, I do not share in the assumption that the State offers a good way to remedy the problem.
Again, I would just draw your attention to the legitimacy of the role of the state in addressing those other areas of concern under (perhaps best filed under the catchall of 'problematic parenting') already mentioned by example above.
I would respond by pointing out a characteristic difference between the list of other areas you provided, and the current issue under discussion. The items you listed, like child starvation and beatings, are areas where the state intervenes when there has been a wrong which has occurred. Starving child or a beaten child is evident. So, if by the states role here, you're talking about malnourished kids, ones that are too skinny, or grossly fat, such that a wrong has occurred for which there is a remedy or criminal violation, that is one thing. Adopting a mandatory diet that all parents must follow is another.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Look at what happens when we have parents who want their kids to walk a 440 yards by themselves these days. The State comes to the rescue and traumatizes the kids, threatens the parents with "child protective services", etc. What's going to happen when parents are identified as overfeeding their kids with fast food? Are we going to have child protective services impose a diet, with the parents reporting back in like they're on parole? If they fail to comply, do the kids go to a foster home?
Again, do you see no similar role for the state if/when parents are underfeeding their children?
I see a role, but not a "similar" one. As noted above, when a child is underfed, it's going to be evident and then the parents can be prosecuted. What we're talking about with a dietary requirement is that perfectly healthy kids are going to be prohibited from bringing a small bag of Doritos to school with their lunch. It's sort of - I'll put it this way - like the difference between having a remedy for defamation, but not allowing the government to enact a "prior restraint" relative to speech.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Should the state entirely forego all obligations to address the poor nutrition of those who have no control over their own nutritional requirements? Why/how is overfeeding significantly different to underfeeding? Why, for example, might giving a child 10 doughnuts a day not be an issue for the state where giving them two quarts of gin a day might be? Does the state have any obligation to protect from harm, and ensure the well-being of, vulnerable minors who cannot protect themselves? In other words, what point are you trying to make here?
I think the difference I'm relating here is the difference between punishing parents for abusing their kids -- you see a grossly obese kid, for example, and take action -- vs. enacting a rule that kids can't eat doughnuts.
Brian Peacock wrote:
I would guess that you'd agree that the state should have a role to play in this respect, that being; protecting the vulnerable. Nonetheless, you also appear to be saying that parents should not be challenged or confronted by the state for, say, clogging the arteries of their children or over-stressing their developing livers, circulatory system, or joints etc. If not, why not - if so, how so?
I think the difference is when you're talking about intervening in advance, assuming that because kids are fed milk, cheese and butter that they are being abused due an increased risk of arterial issues.... vs. taking action when a defined issue actually occurs.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Your incredulity is not a justification in itself. Please be more specific.
]
I think I've tried to explain the distinction I'm making. There is a difference in the type of interventions you are describing. Intervening in a crime after it happens and then prosecuting is one thing. Setting up a regulation system to prevent it ever happening, such that parents no longer have the responsibility or the option to oversee basic aspects of their children's upbringing is quite another.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar