Half-ton mom aims to hit 1,000lb by feasting online

[Alan]

Because we're not dipshit like you. And we're also not just going to let you backpedal after the whole fucking unscientific bout about "fat people don't get more unhealthy after a certain point" just because you want to ignore it like if you never insisted on a bunch of clearly unscientific bullshit.

[MissCheyenne]

Sternn, in your original post, it says the woman in question is cutting down her movement in order to help achieve her goals. She's aiming to be so fat that she WON'T be able to move independently or will have extreme difficulty in doing so. Her daughter is what, 4? If she is incapable of movement and/or chooses not to move, she is therefore incapable of PROPERLY CARING FOR A YOUNG CHILD and it IS abuse/neglect. She can be as fat as she wants BUT she has a young child to think of and take care of. If she is physically incapable of looking after that child, cooking meals, taking her school, bathing her etc etc then she IS neglecting that child and she SHOULD be taken away from her and given a home with someone who has the capacity to care for her properly.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

Sternn, in your original post, it says the woman in question is cutting down her movement in order to help achieve her goals. She's aiming to be so fat that she WON'T be able to move independently or will have extreme difficulty in doing so. Her daughter is what, 4? If she is incapable of movement and/or chooses not to move, she is therefore incapable of PROPERLY CARING FOR A YOUNG CHILD and it IS abuse/neglect. She can be as fat as she wants BUT she has a young child to think of and take care of. If she is physically incapable of looking after that child, cooking meals, taking her school, bathing her etc etc then she IS neglecting that child and she SHOULD be taken away from her and given a home with someone who has the capacity to care for her properly.

Yes, BUT at the time she decided to reach for the 1000 lb mark she was already what? 600 lbs? She was already immobile at this time.

She has her own website along with social media pages and has been on a dozen TV shows. My point is, IF this is child abuse, then why is no one doing anything?

I would argue it is because of two reasons:

1. As I stated, she was already so large it didn't really matter.

2. IF this is child abuse then the state has to take action. If they take action on the grounds you listed above (lack of movement, child having to help around the house), then that opens the door to a whole new set of problems.

If you classify her actions as criminal, you then make all overweight people who have reduced mobility that have children criminals. What happens when a 700 lb woman gets pregnant?

I'm just saying IF it were actual child abuse it would be illegal. The fact it isn't illegal means it's not child abuse. If anyone argues it SHOULD be illegal, then they really have to look at what the implications would be for the rest of society.

Would you then have to make having a child if you are a quadriplegic illegal? What happens if you have a four year old and are in an accident and become quadriplegic?

There are long spanning implications to calling this child abuse that resound throughout society. People here are quick to seem to want to call it 'child abuse', but the reality is it is not from a legal standpoint, and will not be ever as they can't go around arresting people for being large or immobile.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Alan

No, you idiot. Those links clearly say that every increase in weight past a certain point is EXPONENTIALLY more risk-prone!
You're fucking saying that past one point, differences in weight don't matter in regards to how unhealthy a person is, which is THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE that actual research shows.

Ben only called you out on this and I'm proving that he was right and you were wrong.

First off, what point are you trying to make here? That being overweight is dangerous to the point that overweight parents should have their children taken from them?

I said and you can look above and see that the dangers associated with being overweight are minimal once you reach a certain point. This point has nothing to do with the main topic here, I am just pointing out that a person who is 500 lbs over weight is only slightly better off than a person who is 600 lbs.

Ben and yourself made the assertion that the difference between 200 lbs - 300 lbs is equal to the dangers facing a person that goes from 500 lbs to 600 lbs.

This is wrong. Thanks for providing the links you did as a nice chart you provided proves my point exactly.



But again, this has no real bearing on the topic. Are you suggesting that the term 'child abuse' should apply equally to anyone overweight due to the dangers presented?

[Alan]

So the fact that that graph shows an EXPONENTIAL INCREASE in the risk of mortality (the difference between someone with a BMI of 25 to 30 is something like .3 while the difference between someone with a BMI of 35 to 40 is almost 1 and the graph keeps geometrically increasing)
is somehow "proof" of your bullshit that an increase of weight after a certain point is only slightly worse?

No, you fucking dipshit, the very graph says that it is worse. Much, much worse.
Do you seriously not understand graphs?

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Ben and yourself made the assertion that the difference between 200 lbs - 300 lbs is equal to the dangers facing a person that goes from 500 lbs to 600 lbs.

I did no such thing.

This is why I can't talk to you any more. When someone clearly proves a particular statement you made was wrong you try to shift the focus from the original statement, bring in arbitrary third party info to muddy the waters or outright make up things (see your quote above) about what the other person stated.

There's no point in trying to have a rational, logical conversation with you when you behave like this.

[Grausamkeit]

Sternn, that's not what anyone said. You stop that right now.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Alan

So the fact that that graph shows an EXPONENTIAL INCREASE in the risk of mortality (the difference between someone with a BMI of 25 to 30 is something like .3 while the difference between someone with a BMI of 35 to 40 is almost 1 and the graph keeps geometrically increasing)
is somehow "proof" of your bullshit that an increase of weight after a certain point is only slightly worse?

No, you fucking dipshit, the very graph says that it is worse. Much, much worse.
Do you seriously not understand graphs?

It is you who looks to not understand graphs. That graph represents the very argument of what I said above. It is a J curve, meaning as it goes up it will become less of a differential between the numbers. You only have to look at the path to determine this.

But again, this is not even the point of the thread. Again, you have dodged the question, which is, do you think that this person is endangering her health to the point the government should intervene?

Your continued postings here trying to say that her health is in danger suggests you think the government should take action, does it not?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I did no such thing.

This is why I can't talk to you any more. When someone clearly proves a particular statement you made was wrong you try to shift the focus from the original statement, bring in arbitrary third party info to muddy the waters or outright make up things (see your quote above) about what the other person stated.

There's no point in trying to have a rational, logical conversation with you when you behave like this.

ttp://www.gothic.net/boards/showpost.php?p=673565&postcount=52

If you are morbidly obese you can't get more morbidly obese. The health problems she is facing are already there. She is already home bound and can't walk, putting on a few more pounds and bringing in 90k instead of living on disability seems like a pretty good deal.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...7&postcount=60

That is not scientifically accurate. Increasing weight beyond the threshold of initial morbid obesity does cause increasing complications.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...5&postcount=61

I'm not disagreeing with you there, but I would argue that the damage done is on a respective curve, once you get past a certain point it would increase the damage, but only minimally compared to farther down the chart.

You also have to realise by the time they reach the level of being morbidly obese there is already an issue there which exists and that if they haven't stopped themselves from getting to that point, why would they stop now?

It's not like a 700 lb person goes, 'give me three buckets of chicken, six burgers, two pizzas, oh and a diet coke because I am worried about my weight now that I am past the point of being morbidly obese'.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...5&postcount=62

There are significant differences in health risks between what a 400 pound, a 600 pound and an 800 pound person faces. Despite your articulate tap dancing, you were still wrong.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...9&postcount=65

A person who is 500 lbs overweight is only slightly more at risk than a person who is 400 lbs overweight.

The difference between say 10 lbs overweight and 300 would be a factor in a decision to lose weight due to medical risks, but once you pass a certain point the change, although it might technically be a fractional bit more, it is only a very minuscule change and would not be enough to factor in to a normal persons thought process.

[CptSternn]

So, does everyone agree being fat is unhealthy? Or shall we continue to argue about BMI index?

Everyone seems to be ignoring the topic at hand, which is, should this lady have her children taken off of her.

A lot of people here seem to think her lifestyle is very unhealthy. Would those people also agree the government should intervene?

[Solumina]

If the kids are not being taken care of then yes, they should be taken away. That being said she most likely has relatives or has hired someone to help with the tasks that she cannot do.

Is that an easy enough answer for you?

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

ttp://www.gothic.net/boards/showpost.php?p=673565&postcount=52

If you are morbidly obese you can't get more morbidly obese. The health problems she is facing are already there. She is already home bound and can't walk, putting on a few more pounds and bringing in 90k instead of living on disability seems like a pretty good deal.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...7&postcount=60

That is not scientifically accurate. Increasing weight beyond the threshold of initial morbid obesity does cause increasing complications.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...5&postcount=61

I'm not disagreeing with you there, but I would argue that the damage done is on a respective curve, once you get past a certain point it would increase the damage, but only minimally compared to farther down the chart.

You also have to realise by the time they reach the level of being morbidly obese there is already an issue there which exists and that if they haven't stopped themselves from getting to that point, why would they stop now?

It's not like a 700 lb person goes, 'give me three buckets of chicken, six burgers, two pizzas, oh and a diet coke because I am worried about my weight now that I am past the point of being morbidly obese'.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...5&postcount=62

There are significant differences in health risks between what a 400 pound, a 600 pound and an 800 pound person faces. Despite your articulate tap dancing, you were still wrong.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...9&postcount=65

A person who is 500 lbs overweight is only slightly more at risk than a person who is 400 lbs overweight.

The difference between say 10 lbs overweight and 300 would be a factor in a decision to lose weight due to medical risks, but once you pass a certain point the change, although it might technically be a fractional bit more, it is only a very minuscule change and would not be enough to factor in to a normal persons thought process.

Again, none of that, even the comments of mine that you've quoted accurately, are equal to "Ben ... made the assertion that the difference between 200 lbs - 300 lbs is equal to the dangers facing a person that goes from 500 lbs to 600 lbs."

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Why do you argue so unfairly and so inaccurately?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Why do you argue so unfairly and so inaccurately?

Why do you attempt to deride threads by going off on irrelevant tangents?

What is the point you are trying to make? That a person who is 500 lbs overweight should have her children taken off her by the state while a 400 lb person should not? What exactly are you trying to prove with your BMI calculations here? You continue to drone on about something that is not even relevant in attempts to justify some point you refuse to make.

What is your stance on the topic at hand, and more importantly, what do your assertions about BMI have to do with them?

Lets say I agree with your statement that being 800 lbs overweight is phenomenally worse than being 700 lbs overweight. Now what? What is your point and how does it relate to the topic?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Solumina

If the kids are not being taken care of then yes, they should be taken away. That being said she most likely has relatives or has hired someone to help with the tasks that she cannot do.

Is that an easy enough answer for you?

Thanks for being the only person thus far to even reply to the topic and not go off on some tangent about BMI.

If she didn't have help from family should she have her children taken off her by the state? What if she was incapacitated because she got cancer?

Thats the question I am posing here. People are seemingly saying she should have her kids removed for abuse, yet when you put a similar person in the same situation (i.e. a person who gets sick or in an accident) people are not so quick to say the government should intervene.

You also pointed out something else I was driving at for a while as well - if you make 90k a year you can easily hire someone to help out, which puts her in a better position than the morbidly obese who do not have their own website.

[Solumina]

Honestly it doesn't matter what caused someone to become incapacitated, if they are unable to care for the kids and are unable to get someone to assist them then the kids should be taken away, children shouldn't be allowed to be neglected no matter how heartbreaking and unfortunate the parent's circumstances are.

I don't believe that this woman is creating a healthy environment for her family and I do feel terribly sorry for any children that grow up in such an environment but it doesn't seem as though it is to the point of criminal negligence or criminal abuse. From a psychological perspective it would be considered an abusive environment but there are many common types of abuse that are not legally considered abuse.

[CptSternn]

I actually agree with you fully.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Why do you attempt to deride threads by going off on irrelevant tangents?

What is the point you are trying to make? That a person who is 500 lbs overweight should have her children taken off her by the state while a 400 lb person should not? What exactly are you trying to prove with your BMI calculations here? You continue to drone on about something that is not even relevant in attempts to justify some point you refuse to make.

What is your stance on the topic at hand, and more importantly, what do your assertions about BMI have to do with them?

Lets say I agree with your statement that being 800 lbs overweight is phenomenally worse than being 700 lbs overweight. Now what? What is your point and how does it relate to the topic?

I didn't say anything about BMI (there you go again), I didn't make any calculations, I didn't post any links or any graph; I corrected one grossly inaccurate statement you made, and you've just agreed with my correction. I made my opinion on the original topic known earlier.

We're done here.