King's Lynn parents' cruelty arrest over obese child

The only ones who don't claim a psychological cause are those who believe it to be physiological - i.e. a natural propensity to retain excess weight.

Well I think it is down to your genetic make-up and how that means the environment will shape that expression. I strongly believe that a more slow paced work and social life has a key part. I strongly believe that usage of anti-biotics in infants compounds the issues. I strongly believe the prevalence of poor diet in neonates and usage of formula feeds compounds the issues. I think it is a combination of physiological, environmental, and social circumstances. And I include psychological in the physiological because I don't believe in a mind/body duality and neither should you because that just turns it into a nature vs nurture debate when all sense and evidence points that it is nature shaped by nurture.
 
The laws are quoted in response to people such as the parents involved in this case who try to make out it has nothing to do with their diet and exercise and is entirely a genetic issue, which is of course impossible.

Yes because when you want to change behaviour mocking always works better than explanation.
 
I include psychological in the physiological because I don't believe in a mind/body duality and neither should you because that just turns it into a nature vs nurture debate when all sense and evidence points that it is nature shaped by nurture.
Indeed, it's a two way street essentially. Both influence who & what we become & during our lives both influence each other & us simultaneously.

It's odd how few people seem to appreciate this.
 
Quite the opposite. I was brought up on no junk food (other than the occasional indian takeaway) because we simply couldn't afford it. We grew and ate our own veg instead.

You had enough grounds to sustain a smallholding to supply a whole family with vegetables? That's pretty privileged. What about those families who live in a studio flat 10 storeys up?
 
Yes because when you want to change behaviour mocking always works better than explanation.

Way to change the subject. I don't genuinely believe the parents believe that anyway, do you? It's just an attempt to deflect blame from their poor parenting. So explanation is a wasted effort.
 
Last edited:
Way to change the subject. I don't genuinely believe the parents believe that anyway, do you? It's just an attempt to deflect blame from their poor parenting. So explanation is a wasted effort.

So the next time you are in a thread about depression shall we tell you to 'just snap out of it'.
 
Ignoring the fact I don't have depression. That has to be the most random unrelated reply I've ever seen, even coming from you it's surprising. Congrats.

The fact you don't see that telling someone with depression to just 'snap out of it' is equally constructive as telling someone who is overweight 'to just put the fork' down speaks volumes.

Par for the course here though - not allowed to say anything that will upset the religiously inclined but absolutely fine to call people with mental health problems 'crazies' or people with health issues related to their weight 'fatties'.
 
The fact you don't see that telling someone with depression to just 'snap out of it' is equally constructive as telling someone who is overweight 'to just put the fork' down speaks volumes.

How on earth do you equate a perfectly correct scientific statement about energy conservation with being the same as "put the fork down"? :confused:

In response to people blaming their physical state on genetics and not the fact they eat 10 macdonalds a day, some posters correctly make the statement that such as thing is impossible due to the conservation of energy, that is not telling people to "put the fork down", or a mockery. It is a true statement that their condition is caused by eating too much and not exercising enough, and cannot simply be caused by genetics (if indeed that plays any role in that individual). And they need to accept that instead of being in denial. It does not deny a potential physiological or neurological contribution to their obesity.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this. More needs to be done to prevent obesity. It seems harsh but sometimes being nicey nicey and letting people do what they want doesn't always work.
 
How on earth do you equate a perfectly correct scientific statement about energy conservation with being the same as "put the fork down"? :confused:

I never said it was the same did I.

In response to people blaming their physical state on genetics and not the fact they eat 10 macdonalds a day, some posters correctly make the statement that such as thing is impossible due to the conservation of energy,

Yes, the observation is correct. But the conclusion people then draw from it are far from correct.

that is not telling people to "put the fork down"

Seems to me it's being used that way quite a lot on here.

Oh I guess it would be ok for me to start threads with titles such as *******, *******s, ****ers, ... oh look I can't can I because that they all get starred out.

It is a true statement that their condition is caused by eating too much and not exercising enough, and cannot simply be caused by genetics (if indeed that plays any role in that individual). And they need to accept that instead of being in denial. It does not deny a potential physiological or neurological contribution to their obesity.

No it does not deny the potential. I am not saying the eating and lack of exercise is not the main problem. I am tackling the prejudice shown and the simplistic thinking behind it.
 
Thin privilege is not having your kids taken away from you for simply having "big" genetics

As Doctor Hillary explained on Good Morning Britain the idea of a 'fat gene' is fairly controversial. Of course there are known medical conditions that cause the slowing of the metabolism but the idea of being 'genetically fat' is far from proven.
 
But then look at a most Opera singing men, they tend to be 'large' (some kinda gene that gives them the voice, but with added bulk) but don't have the bulging rolls of fat that obese tend to have (due to eating). Cant really explain it, but there does seem to be a genetic weight gene, but as I said before, they just look rather large, and over eaters, well obviously anyone can tell them.
Hope someone can understand what I'm trying to say.. You get large, not muscled ones, and you get fat galore.. The latter is obviously not genetic
Simply, the 'rotund' ones keep their shape, a certain round shape, the over-eaters (even if they're less of a size) tend to have flabby skin, double chins, and over hanging stomachs and buttocks (hope none of you were eating while reading that) and look like giant dried prunes
BTW, that has nothing to do with the poor kid, his parents are a bunch a *****
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom